Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
There were a couple of Marlowe movies that were set in contemporary times & they were okay... just seemed a little 'off' because of it IMO.
And- there were archaeologists in the 30's and NOW- so Indy would work today, right?

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Suasor:
Some things are timeless.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Suasor:
Some things are timeless.

---

I say we make a Hercules movie, but set it in today's time.



Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

I think Bond works very well in his own era. I like him less when he is tracking drug dealers and real-life style terrorists, though.

---

Quite, while I like Dalton as an actor, his two movies were, after all, simple 80's action flicks. The 'Bond' feel was all but lost.

Quote:

---

I like to keep his threats a bit over-the-top, with vast secret organizations or villainous masterminds with weird stuff going on.

---

Yes, if there isn't a bit of the outrageous in the film (or novel), then it might as well be a Mission Impossible or Bourne flick.

Quote:

---

I think that some of the classic figures partly exist to celebrate a certain degree of sexist behavior. So that's hard to translate. If you set it in its own time it's okay, but when you transport them to modern times you either need to update their behavior and lose a flavor character aspect, or retain their behavior and have them look barbaric and wrong.

---

Precisely. While I love the first 3 Brosnan movies (I just like Pierce so much), I'm the first to admit that his Bond is a good fellow, and Bond should be someone you wouldn't necessarily want to pal around with much. So Brosnan's movies, to me, are sort of like alternate reality Bond, where he's a flat out hero. So, your point is made there.

And Craig's movies? Well, now in hindsight, I think his Bond is pretty good (although he's a bit smallish, physically speaking). But he'd work better in the 50's or 60's IMO. Today is high tek- drones do the explosions, finance runs evil, the enemies are out in the open, and they are mostly old guys that threaten the world with resource depletion & political corruption. Setting a ruthless Bond in today's world is kind of like bringing a gun to a cyber fight.



Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
There were a couple of Marlowe movies that were set in contemporary times & they were okay... just seemed a little 'off' because of it IMO.
And- there were archaeologists in the 30's and NOW- so Indy would work today, right?

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

I was having this discussion with a co-worker: Does Bond work best in the era in which he was created?

---

Quote:

---

Would Sherlock Holmes or Indiana Jones work well rebooted to be contemporary characters?

---

Quote:

---

A new Bond novel is currently being written set in 1969

---

Quote:

---

Thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CATPIRATE:
The latest flicks 007 has uncovered the Illuminati. Food for oil, cover ups, conspiracies, guns for money, political, religious, and economic terrorism is all around us in the 21st. The US alone spends 1 trillion dollars for the spy industrial complex. That is not the stealth ships, aircraft, and satellites with the military industrial complex. We need him in the 21st century.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THESOMNAMBULIST:
He's a preposterous character (amusing but preposterous)

---