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 must hate the Craig era then, if you don't like sappy melodrama
Actually I enjoy the Craig Era a lot. Especially Casino Royale and Spectre. Quantum of Solace and Skyfall are okay but they don't have a lot of rewatch value for me. But the again I've made this known dozens of times.
And then it's understandable why you so easily dislike/not like a certain new franchise creation (Star Trek or James Bond) for the sake of something that is perhaps more entertaining than Bond or Star Trek (e.g. Kingsman, Fast & Furious, The Orville).
You know? That's perfectly fine for me actually. It's all a matter of taste. But oughtn't we be a bit more protective of the franchises we really love? Not writing off something completely before even a film or episode has been produced? Try to be open-minded? I mean....recently Sam Mendes has become like the representative of the devil in this topic. That's unfair. The man made a Bond film no less. Two. In the past we didn't grill Lee Tamahoori, like we do know with Mendes. I dislike DAD, but there's no reason to turn him into a paria. I have nothing against Tamahoori. Fine guy.
Bond fandom this way becomes not just critical -which is all fine for me- but also extremely harsh, and in a way self-destructive for whatever Bond film still needs to premiere. I know we all want to be our own director. But in the end we aren't. We are not the decision-makers.
That "open minded" thing is a rather exaggerated notion when one knows what kind of delivery a certain person would make. Like Nolan, for example. You don't expect him to do a light Bond film, do you? That "judging without seeing it first" only works when one doesn't actually know the template that's being worked. Some things are obvious, like the case of Nolan, for example.
Look, I'm not disputing your opinion, but that superiority complex to have the last word with the idea of you making your opinion look superior to the others can make you lose credibility. The whole three paragraphs you wrote can be just be concluded in one sentence by saying "You're wrong, I'm right." People condemn Brosnan as much as they can here, do you see me and others alike who love him, jump and bomb every opposition on this thread?
Actually retarded to think EON would never sell Bond.
I don't really see how one can slate Nolan but like SP. Mendes is just a poor man's Nolan. If we're going to do deep character melodramas at least we might as well have the great taste of Coca Cola Nolan at the helm rather than Panda Pops Cola Mendes.
You seem to be suggesting Mendes should automatically get our respect simply because he directed a Bond film? Why if that film happens to be terrible?
And 'we didn't grill Tamahori like we do Mendes'? Do a search for Tamahori on here and you'll be lucky to find a positive word from anyone about the bloke. And rightly so.
Being protective of the series is not lapping up whatever Kool Aid EON plonk down in front of you it's saying 'I don't agree with this' when they hire directors who think:
* The codename theory is a great idea and it would be great to have Sean come back as old Bond and pass on the mantle to Brozza.
* A massive, pitifully executed CGI action sequence is acceptable in a Bond film.
* Turning Blofeld into Bond's stepbrother is a killer twist.
* Shooting a load in their pants because they just filmed the biggest explosion in history while the script is barely finished is fine.
You can praise Lee and Sam all you want. I'll give Mendes a fair bit of credit for SF, which is a decent entry, and parts of SP but if he gets the credit for the good stuff he has to take the criticism for the bad stuff too.
Obviously Tamahori gets no credit for anything. Even the coolest moment of DAD, the sword kick into the camera, was improvised by Broz and nothing to do with him.
Very true. But if that's your attitude I presume you back Donald Trump to the hilt in everything he does then? After all he's the 'decision maker.'
I may yield zero power to affect change in the Bond universe but I still have the right to disagree with said 'decision makers' and state 'not in my name'. The world you seem to be advocating is an EON Communist state where we happily accept whatever they do as being the best course of action.
I'd like to hope that with the distribution deal and B25 (in spite of it being Craig's last) Eon gets their second wind and motivation for Bond's future and the next era.
Generally speaking, actor contracts tend to often be for 3 picture deals- and most certainly aren't planned with 4 year intervals in between. It's not like Toby or Andrew signed to play Spider-Man with the hope that the 2nd and third films would be spaced apart by 4 years. That's a pretty long time commitment, and obviously those films came out in 2-3 years anyway. Cavill's 3rd outing as Superman is out this year four years after his first. Right on target.
Point being- it's more feasible to sign a new actor for three films when they are spaced 2-3 years apart, because one can move on with their career (if so desired) after the contract expires and wouldn't have invested much more than 4 -5 years.
If Eon, Mickey G and Barbara really are that exhausted after each film and need 4 year breaks, by this point they may not want to go thru the whole process again with a new actor. I'd hope they'd keep Bond in the family rather than sell to another producer.
I was only half joking in my post a couple pages back about someone like Michael Bay getting their hands on Bond and turning it into a crappy Transformers CGI clone.
@TheWizardOfIce please can you refrain from making such humourous remarks - dude, I'm at work!
And you have no idea how glad I am about that in your case! I'm sure you would even manage to top Mendes in vain hubris.
Retarded? Maybe far-fetched, but retarded ...?
Nolan has already stated that he was influenced by the earlier films from the 60's/70's and those were anything but melodramatic. Dunkirk is one of the least mushy war films I've seen, but is still very engaging.
The man is not a one trick pony. I wouldn't be so harsh on him.
Regarding Marvel, as I said before, they may not be the greatest, but I'm very impressed with what they've been able to achieve in the past 9 years (since Iron Man's release). I look back on some of their major characters (Stark, Rogers, Thor, Loki, Romanoff, Parker) and how they've been developed with some awe. Their casting choices for the biggest characters fit the visual templates of what we expect and they are beautifully realized, within the context of the universe they have created. Moreover, the films combine wit, humour, adventure and action in a way which reminds me of early Bond. They don't take themselves all that seriously. It's refreshing, and with any luck, the tone of the James Bond films changes back to that in time as well.
Chortle!
With Michael's Sons Greg and David already playing large Production Roles in (David in Casino) Skyfall and Spectre, and with Barbara previously confirming her Daughter has shown a keen eye to film making, that Bond will remain in the EON family for at least another generation. I also do not believe with Michael G's health issues over the last few years that he will continue on beyond the Craig era. I expect David and Gregg to step up and to partner Barbara, Bab's may then step aside and let David and Gregg takeover. They will be middle aged men by that point. David is more than ready to take over from his Dad and so will Gregg when that time comes.
Honest opinion, why his Production Company had Bond 25 listed then removed.. I think had Craig not returned he would be on for Bond 25 with his own choice of actor, and would not have been surprised to see him work with Hardy his go to man again. When Craig announced his return, matters reverted to plan A for EON and Nolan's Bond vision is on hold.
I'd need to check but pretty sure Tamahori states this on the DVD director's commentary.
Yes, he did improvise that.
SF is a homage to Nolan's Batman trilogy - specifically the second one with the joker. Can never remember what they're called. I think even Mendes has pretty much openly acknowledged this. SF is basically Mendes trying to make a Nolan film.
The result is pretty uninspiring IMO but I'm sure the real deal - I.e. Nolan himself - could do better.
Craig fan or not, his films are bringing in the $$$ and Bond's global popularity has arguably never been greater. As Bab's admitted "I just don’t want to think about it,” Barbara tells HuffPostUK on the subject of 007's eventual replacement. "I’m in denial. I don’t want to think about that day. Daniel Craig is Bond, forever, as far as I’m concerned.”
I have always maintained throughout, if Craig returned a 1 film deal with Sony will be made for distribution with Warner Brothers then becoming the new partner for Bond 26 and beyond. Had Craig decided to depart we would have Warner Brother and Nolan was the pull. I still see it beyond Craig - Nolan - Hardy and WB as new Studio/distribution partner.
Do we think, assuming B25 hits the $800m mark or higher, that they might offer Dan a crazy Sean-in-DAF deal to do another? He'd only be 54 in 2022, which when you look at Cruise in MI, Neeson in Taken or even Harrison in KOTCS is not really that old these days.
I certainly think he could pull it off without there being any danger of veering into AVTAK territory.
I'm sure Babs would be desperate for it and the money on the table would be too much to turn down especially as he seems to enjoy the role as long as he gets nice breaks in between films.
In addition just who is there out there who could do the job? I'd be all for paying him silly money to stay on rather than enter a Gavin/Brolin scenario.
Yet the evidence points to a reinvigorated and fully re-energized series every time they've done it.
That's what will happen the next time around too. I'm quite confident of it, especially after 13 years.