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
"THR: I know you don’t want to do a James Bond film -- too big a budget, etc -- but if you could do one your way, on a small budget, full creative freedom, what would a Danny Boyle-made James Bond film look like?
Boyle: I’ve already done one. You've seen it. Stellar cast as well. But I’m not really the guy for those movies. What we do, right, is we use genre -- you take a genre, like this has got a few genres running in it, you use a genre to try and get you in the mainstream. It’s a vehicle to boost you into the mainstream. And then you f--- with the genre. You twist it and change it and move it around. You can’t do it on those big movies. You genuflect in front of them. Too much money, too expectation. It’s the faith of the fans, it’s all that. You’ve got to be very careful. It’s very tempting of course -- I love the movies, I love the books, but I’m not the right guy for those."
At last, a plausibly decent suggestion. Guy Ritchie can take a long run off a short cliff. A Garland Bond would be very interesting.
I still think it's pretty good for the record. Definitely top ten. Loses points for me because of the pretentious side of it and because it wasn't very original in a lot of ways. But the good still outweighs the bad imo.
That's a genuine concern of mine. This era has shown, in SF, that they're willing to acknowledge Bond's age, Craig is looking older, and the writers and everyone else are going into this knowing that it will be his last. That's the exact set up needed for another "aging Bond" movie in the vein of SF.
I think EON will live in SF's shadow while Craig is Bond. The public still expects something that resonates with them like that film did and the media will inevitably draw comparisons between B25 and the 2012 entry. Whatever happens, I'm fairly certain they will try to give the film some 'heart'. The concern is will they cross the fine line? We'll have to wait and see. I certainly don't want to see another cryfest in the last act.
I wouldn't mind another personal/emotional movie because I think that would be in keeping with the other Craig films. The way I see it, they've been going down that road for a while so it's not really neccessary for them to turn around when they're so close to the end. I do hope that they change direction with the next actor comes though.
Ageing is certainly a good hook in terms of getting the audience to relate to the central character. Even younger fans have seen their parents or grandparents "lose their powers" as time catches up with them. Time will catch up with every single member of the audience: it's one of the most powerful forces and there is nothing we can do. As with Logan, what we can see is how chracters cope with seeing themselves decline and the type of bravery it takes to look ageing in the face and deal with it face on.
Is it a fluke or coincidence that a Bond movie with age and time as a core themes did so well? I dont think so. With this being DC's last and him ageing before our eyes, will they be tempted to revisit this theme? Perhaps.
it could work well and it could be horrible IMHO. Nothing wrong with the concept - all about the execution.
I think something smaller is more likely if they do want to do an Unforgiven/Logan type thing as well. But then actually, even if the rumours were true and that was the direction they were taking (I think it sounds believeable to be honest), who's to say that Boyle and his writer won't come up with something completely different to Purvis and Wade.
or maybe just "JAMES".
I can't see him wanting to do big budget action fare after he leaves EON and so something which gives him an opportunity to showcase his acting skills while drawing a large audience may have been 'his' personal motivation for returning. Maybe that's what he was promised. It will give him a springboard to do other 'prestige' work once this gig is finished. Keep in mind he's hardly been visible as an actor outside of Bond for the past 7 or so years, so he needs to reintroduce himself.
---- I think the predictable and uninventive title may be left for the B26 anniversary film which introduces a new actor. 'James Bond OO7' has a certain air to it.
I'm still predicting a simple title like "JAMES BOND" won't happen until after the Eon sale when an unimaginative producer gets their paws on 007, and makes a CGI filled Marvel inspired adventure that casts Robert Downey Jr as Bond. Until then I think the titles are safe in Eon's hands. Although the title, SP is sometimes criticized as being a bit on the dull side, it was still reasonably Bondian.
The Hildebrand Rarity is still available. I always liked Risico and The Property of A Lady.
I can't stand that title to be honest. I know it's Fleming but to me it just doesn't sound very James Bond, just sounds weird and pretentious.
But I could have lived with it if they'd actually commited to it. Instead we get it also being the name of the organisation (how does that relate to the titles meaning?), which feels so shoehorned in. It also came back to bite them on the arse a bit because if they'd just kept the organisation nameless (which I think works better for what they were going for in that film anyway) the SP retcon would have been much simpler. As it stands you can really tell they were making it up as they went along, all because they seemed to get cold feet over the title and shoehorned it in as the name of the organisation.
Fleming is the way to go, to (potentially) bookend the Craig Bond films is another reason. The titles can easily absorb the content of future scripts and where the films are great, they take on and contribute to the greatness.
Don’t get me started on SF and SP and all their hollow symbolism!
Never heard that Fleming described Bond as left of centre. I’d say that this broadly fits the way in which the character has been portrayed on screen though. Bond is defending liberal values against totalitarians and tyrants. He’s obviously an internationalist and an interventionist. By today’s standards this would mark him out as a rabid liberal in the UK and US.
He was also I would say (despite the racism in the books) ahead of the curve on race. Screen Bond is relatively free of prejudice in that area. And despite the supposed misogyny and sexism (of which there’s a fair amount), the films incorporated strong, assertive female characters from very early on. So Bond is practically a Guardian reader!
Boyle would be fine.
Thank you. I like you too.