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
Yes, I agree with this.
That would be absolutely amazing, 100x better than Mendes.
They said it was for Bond 25 specifically.
If they had better writers, a better cast, better directors & more experienced producers they could have continued with standalone stories with light continuity and been critically successful then if they wanted to imho.
They made a conscious decision to go on this tangent. It has undoubtedly been successful but I think it's run its course, at least on the evidence of the latest entry. At least from my perspective, it's time to get back to basics.
The big question remains whether the current EON even know how to deliver a proper formula film. I contend that the last great one was GE, which was made when Cubby was still with us.
Tony Scott was directer there whant for QOS and kild him self with jumping from a bridge. He whas deprest and producers no was possible to much for him too. Man On Fire (2004) was possible reasen why there whant him and possible also writer of that movie. If deside for stil asking that writer i wil not say no. Ridley Scott is no Bond material.
Wise words re Bond in the 90's. But Bond does not exist in a cultural vacuum so it's interesting to consider, what was it about the 90s that produced/encouraged/inspired the James Bond we got? Was the 90s just a poor decade all round? (as an 80s fan, I'm happy to go down the route)
So they perhaps wanted to make Bond more commercially viable rather than authentic, and if that meant catering to American's expectations of what Bond was (in a lowest common denominator cliched sense) in order to boost box office, then so be it. I think that's why we saw more American actresses and Americanisms creep in post-GE, in combination with more machine gun mindless action. It seemed to be a conscious decision on EON's part. I think they were chasing a certain demographic in order to rebuild Bond's popularity with a new generation.
The 90's were the 'Seinfeld' (much ado about nothing) decade after all, and Bond played into it well in order to survive. Instantly forgettable.
Great call on Ridley Scott! What a coup he would be for a Bond Director!
Which leaves the question, what would MP be like if Mendes was never involved in Bond? And what will she be like if/when he leaves the franchise?
What did she say?
Yes, we need something concrete soon. Anyone know when that Barber thing is? When specifically?
McTiernan would be an inspired choice. Can't believe he hasn't got more films to his credit.
Good director, who I think could handle a Bond film well, and would respect the series.
Not sure how Marc Forster got the job - he's German. Must have been a fluke he got the director job considering all the rest were not foreign. A lot of fans don't like QOS so perhaps it's best to stay British! ;)
McTiernan was in jail until recently.
And consequently he is finding it hard to get employed.
I like the current lineup of Fiennes, Harris and Wishaw, so it would be a shame to loose all three.
My choice for director is still Jaume Collet-Serra.
It will be in March, but I don't have the precise date. Last year it was around March 24.
MGM will report fourth-quarter and year-end financial results and have a conference call with analysts and investors. It was during the March 2016 conference call that Barber said Bond movies would come out on a three- to four-year cycle.