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
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co
"Syncopy"
But that's also just a general assumption based on his past films. We dont know what his Bond vision is.
As big a fan of Nolan as I am, I'm honestly not sure how I'd feel about him taking on Bond. He's so original, I'd rather just see his own original films that watch him jammed into a corner with a formula. There's also the same issue that would exist with Mendes, where he'd want massive control over everything and need a very particular team on board. That being said, I find him to be superior to Mendes in some ways, as he's a writer and knows story beats and what works, and could make out a story with his brother instead of turning to another writer. Mendes always seemed at the mercy of the writers, as he couldn't perform the act himself.
One of the reasons why I'm more certain than not that this Nolan news isn't true is because of all the rumblings of P&W's months of involvement in scripting Bond 25. If Nolan was on the job, he'd not only prefer jumpstarting a new Bond, he's also want writing duties, likely while bringing his brother in to develop the story. I don't make a Nolan connection when I hear that the main Craig Bond writers are back, alongside all the other signs of a final film in this era. None of it reads like EON are gearing for a fresh start. Nolan certainly respects the series, but I think he'd end up working best outside of Bond. I can't see him tying himself down creatively to do any more than one Bond film, if they can tame him for even that, and I'd only want him if he was in it for a longer haul over at least a trilogy.
The issue is that, unlike the Batman films, Nolan likely wouldn't have three or four years in between releases to write and develop each Bond script. People are going to want his Bond films out a lot faster, at two year intervals or a small amount more (especially after the latest films and their long waits), which leaves him little time in between Bond to do anything new or original to cleanse his palate. I just don't see him committing to such a schedule where he'd always be Bond focused, and allowed to work on nothing else in a directing position. If he did, I think we'd be forced to wait three to four years for every Bond film he was directing, but instead of the Craig era where that wait only happened for the last two films, it would be the wait for all the films. I can't see fans being excited about that, as the impatience here is more than evidence of.
@FoxRox, this is where I stand to, as explained above. Too original to be reigned in, essentially. It's why I'd never want a Tarantino Bond film either: his style makes it such that it'd be impossible. I'd love to see both of them do their own spy films, but the idea of them tackling something like Bond with its own traditions and expectations would only restrict them in some ways that don't excite me. And I don't think they'd like wearing those chains either, or dealing with all the studio drama. It's why the both of them truly run their movies, and are so heavily entrenched in all aspects. They can't settle for not being given the freedom of their vision.
Again, I don't expect the producers to go there, it would take almost wholesale approval of his concept and giving him unprecedented creative control of their Bond films.
Nolan would be interesting. Tarantino, not interested. Too bad for him the McClory rogue missions are over.
That could be an interesting idea. Give Nolan two films to play around in with Hardy in the tux (or better yet, Fassbender, if the man can be convinced) and let them stand as their own unique take, independent of any existing timelines. This would, as you say, help the producers bridge things as well as give them more time to figure out where to take things narratively down the road—revert to prior timeline? maintain Craig's timeline? reset from both timelines? (or my own way outside the box idea: combine both timelines with Craig's somehow existing pre-Connery so that Bond has both Vesper and Tracy in his past?)
I think Babs would give him a long leash. He's more than proven he can do a superior Bond film, given what he achieved with the Bat (resurrecting it from the dead, which is probably where it's headed back to these days) and Inception.
The only thing with Nolan which is iffy is his penchant for his regulars on the casting front.
He's also not a great action director, especially when it comes to close quarters fights (you lose sense of the action through how he often fails to capture the action inside the camera's picture box). I think it'd be crucial to have a talented second unit to give him what he wants out of the sequences.
Not a concession like letting a director have his chosen name for the score.
Official news will follow soon enough.
Don't encourage the tin foil hat folks, @Benny. ;) I don't think they can handle more promises of Bond 25's development that are later revealed as conspiracy.
A ghastly statement from a ghostly person.
If you're going to be a troll, then you'll find your time here very short lived.
James Bond - Tom Hardy (Eames)
M - Michael Caine
Q - Cillian Murphy
Moneypenny - Anne Hathaway
Blofeld - Tom Hardy (Bane)
I could see Hardy being a good Savalas-esque Blofeld tbh.
Hardy playing Bond and Blofeld? Now there, are some family issues.
May as well go whole hog at that point and make 'em biological bros.