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
It's not a mistake if the man has no interest in returning.
Neither did Mendes, but they got him back. I wonder just how hard they tried to get Deakins back, if at all, really. I was still happy with their choice in Hoyte van Hoytema, until I saw the finished product.
Deakins was pretty unequivocal about not returning. I think it's sometimes easy to forget that most people don't see Bond in the way we do. This is a guy with a cracking CV and I imagine Bond was never really on his radar - when it came up he nailed it. He's an old school pro, someone who is all about the work and not the $$$.
Which I can't complain about, as the last few movies he has shot have blown me away. I can't wait to see how 'Blade Runner 2' looks.
Bladerunner 2 is one of those films that doesn't need to happen. However, given the fact it is, Deakins is easily the DoP best placed to pull it off.
Coupled with Deakins and the cast involved what I did perceive as a pointless sequel has shifted into one of the must sees of 2017.
Can't wait to see Arrival, the trailer and reviews make it look another winner for Denis.
Also it looks like the film I hoped Interstellar was instead of the ponderous over long pretentious guff it was.
"Arrival" gets very good reviews so far. Can't wait to see it :-).
agreed.. but i feel like Hoyt Van Hoytema did a terrific job on SP as well... IMO, it was a very good lateral move from Roger Deakins... both films have stunning cinematography... scenes will always stick out the most for me because of their cinematography - in SF - the fight in front of the jellyfish sign, and Bond's entrance into the floating casino.... in SP - Lucia returning home, knowing she was going to die - then Bond executing her two assassins... the reunion of Bond and White..
Would've been a great choice during the Brosnan era, but not sure about now. For one thing could someone of his age (just googled it, he's 78) cope with the stress of making a modern blockbuster? I mean I know Campbell isn't far off that age and we all want him back but I think the difference is he's experienced. He's done big budget studio films recently. Verehoven hasn't done that, or an action film of any kind, since the 90s.
Since we're on about 90s action films, I'd still love Katheryn Bigelow. Imagine stunts and action scenes on par with Point Break, infused with the tension and itensity of The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty.
Gr8 Walken reference.
What if, right now, they are actually planning a whole outline for the future of the franchise rather than just the next film? A few set of films that are planned, outlined and constructed to have Bond films and set up a timeline consecutively. Just an idea that occurred.
That would need for Daniel Craig to be gone.
I'd bet all the money in the world that that's not happening behind the scenes right now.
Silly, we all know EON never thinks past the next film they make.
I wish you weren't right but I'm afraid you are. My guess at least.
Not really.
If however they plan to go back to standalone films with no clear timeline, then I'm not sure if planning ahead is necessary.
Regardless, I think it would help if they gave more thought as to how they want James Bond to be portrayed on screen for the next 10 or so years. What kind of character traits will they emphasize and what traits will they attempt to downplay? Will he be back to his womanizing ways or not? Will he be back to the quips or not? If they can at least have that level of vision, then they can select an actor who can best capture the attributes that they want to play up, and move forward from there.
they had their chance with Craig..
did they not do a direct sequel of CR with QOS?..
they just shot themselves in the foot with it by (possibly) letting the writers and directors control a little too much of the story..
they could easily do the Marvel approach if they really wanted to - and if thats the route they want to go, then they need to drop the idea of hiring auteur directors, and going more along the lines of directors akin to the Russo Bros.
Auteur directors tend to want a lot more creative control, especially over the story..
Marvel has enough hit and miss, and they are proof that with all the planning ahead, still a lot of conituity is either thrown overboard, or things from different films tie together so much that you basically have to watch a whole bunch of films, which forces you to also watch the misses.