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
Absolutely agree, DC is best in CR and QoS.
Greengrass has already rejected doing an 'imperialistic' Bond film.
Typical British leftie, he doesn't mind making films about American spies or soldiers.
Villenueve is perfect for a Craig Bond.
Disagree about Campbell.
Mark Gatiss? Oh yeah! Excellent choice. Does wonderful work on Sherlock and Doctor Who. Great novelist to boot and a life-long Bond afficionado. The only issue is that EON keep things very much "in house" (if that's a term). What I mean is that they prefer someone who will do go to script meetings and write down what they're told to (ahem, Purvis and Wade). It's very much by committee and, alas (such as what happened with Spectre), by the numbers. Heck, even Daniel Craig had a crack at writing QOS!
Mark Gatiss has publicly said he would never write a Bond film, sorry, he wants to experience them as a fan rather than write them.
DC wrote stuff for QoS in extenuating circumstances, it was by accident rather than by design.
Also the vast majority of film screenwriting is by committee. In fact many screenwriters only doing redrafts of someone else's work. EON are not exactly unique in that approach.
When they have let writers do their own thing it's had disastrous results - Peter Morgan's terrible idea of Bond killing M, Haggis' ridiculous idea of Bond chasing after Vesper's child, Logan's awful script for Spectre putting the whole production in turmoil.
I haven't seen much of his work, but do you think he would get the tone right? I think we need something lighter and more playful.
In CR and QoS, he seemed very wooden at bits, barely giving a facial expression, other than that train scene with Vesper and their interaction at the hotel reception. CR and QoS may be very solid films, but none of them had Craig's best performance as Bond. If it wasn't for Craig's physicality in those films as well as the story's gritty tone, I doubt his Bond would've been given a praise. In SF, Craig definitely seems more alive in the role and not as wooden as he was before. I'm not SF's biggest fan, far from it. But, there the performance was mountains better than the ones prior to it. And in Spectre he played a James Bond with complete arc and supreme confidence. Definitely not bored.
He wasn't playing Bond in Skyfall? Must have missed that.
What is your point?
Sorry I disagree, he was very much Bond in Skyfall, in fact he was most like Bond in that film. Who was he like if he wasn't very Bond-like? How was he playing a characer that is different to James Bond?
I agree. He seemed like he was playing a Mendes character more than Bond in SF. Like the Kevin Spacey character from American Beauty or Leo from Revolutionary Road. Just another one of those. A great performance, but not Bond.
I think we do, I can't understand how you can think Craig is not 'Bond-like' in Skyfall, he was the very epitome of James Bond - falling for a girl with her wing down to use a Fleming phrase, baiting the villain with his wit, slight insubordination to his superiors, not unlike Connery in GF, which is often seen as the epitome of 'screen Bond'.
Again, he played a great protagonist. But, that protagonist is more akin to what Bruce Wayne in a Christopher Nolan film would be. Not the screen Bond.
Emotional? Tragedian? Did we watch the same film?
Apparently not, observe Bond's stoicism as M drags up his orphan past.
Agreed.