It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You edited you post (you included imdb/rotten tomatoes scores) while I was typing. What I would have said is that I rarely put any stock in what critics say (other fans/movie goers, I am more inclined to listen to). Even if it is just a one-off, I would still like to see a less action heavy Bond, that focuses more on espionage, with only two action sequences.
And I don't remember what the Box Office takings of The International were, but I do remember all the talk of the museum sequence.
I agree with that. I would to see Bond go that route.
There's a certain school of thought that action is character/character is action. In CR, look how much the action told us about the character in the introductory scene (b & w); the chase scene vs the bomb maker; Miami airport; stairwell fight scene; the finale in Venice.
The set pieces were all amazing and worthy as a character tell. I don't think we need less action, just smarter.
Food for thought... On a side note it's why I want Guy Ritche to direct the next one especially after how he was able to weave supernatural and natural in both Sherlock Holmes films.
Agreed. The action needs to be relevant and move the story along not just be inserted.
I haven't really that complaint against recent films. My complaint has been that the sequences sometimes do not generate any suspense or intensity themselves.
Take the Rome chase again, the Fiat guy seemed more in danger than Bond.
I think he wrapped a couple of films and is now filming Legion tv show. Don't know if it's picked up for a series or is just a pilot. Probably the latter.
Yep!!
The new Bourne film has a budget of $120 million!! From the trailers, it's obviously money well spent so far.
I've been saying for years The Bond films need to not only reduce their budgets but to spend wisely. QoS as great as film as it is, abused their on location spending but SP really was the movie where everyone completely lost their minds.
It's absolutely ridiculous that after all these years EoN act as though they haven't learned anything when it comes to money management.
He's also going to be in what's tracking to be one of the biggest movies next year, the live action beauty and the beast.
Regarding Craig as mass killer, I think we already saw that in his breakout from Blofeld HQ. He must have killed at least a dozen with one shot per head, including the long range, almost sniper-like kills. No really fancy man to man combat though, probably on account of his busted knee.
Yeah, when you think about it there is so much scope for inventive and unique action or a smaller scale, the Bond series seems locked in the same vehicle based chase sequences.
The thing about Bond though, I prefer when I see him in a tough situation. When he's less than superhuman. When he bleeds or has his back against the wall and has to think quickly to get out of situation. That's why I wasn't too keen on his quick fights in SP (other than the Hinx one). They were too easy. He was too much in charge. I prefer just one (but more life threatening) fight than Bond going through several foes in a scene. The QoS Slate fight comes to mind as being 'just right'. He was in danger, but he was able to overpower Slate.
I am more comfortable with Neeson going through a bunch of thugs.
Taken 4?
Are you sure?, the last time the poster said everything ends here and Liam Said he wouldn't do more, i don't know if im excited or worried about it.
Seems like they will do as many as they can.
Well said. I wanna requote that deadline article:
"There have been no negotiations on where the Bond movie will land (Sony or Warner Bros. are out front on this) and although it was thought that negotiations might start after the first quarter 2016, parties are not likely to engage in negotiations until later this year. There is no workable script yet and the creative elements have yet to come into place."
So...no studio, no director, no script...but they're in "advanced negotiations" with Piddles? Doesn't make any sense. (Wouldnt they have done the traditional FRWL screentest, with several different actors, and if so, how would this not be publicly known at this point? They are not going to hand this massive role to an actor sight unseen). A studio putting up money IS going to want to have a say in who stars and who directs, especially if EON is putting unproven names out there; there were articles about Amy Pascal asking Brosnan back, and having to be convinced about Craig. I believe its entirely possible that EON is putting together a list of potentials - Bell, Turner, Piddles, etc that they can present to a studio. But then again certain studios have their own relationships and deals with people that they might want to put forward - as a random but not irrelevant example, WB has Christopher Nolan and Tom Hardy. Martin Campbell and Marc Forster had pre-existing relationships with Sony, etc.
And on another note, let's not forget what happened with DAF - they offered Connery a big payday AND a deal for financing for a non-Bond picture. Craig might find something like that more attractive than "just" money, if doing another Bond allows him to get a personal project off the ground.