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
Bond and seriousness should never have a closer relationship than they had in the 90's, that is, a distant one.
From NME quoting the Mirror
Daniel Craig has been confirmed to appear in the next instalment of the espionage franchise, despite previous reports he could quit
Details about the next James Bond movie have reportedly been revealed.
The next film will be the 25th in the British espionage franchise. Daniel Craig, the latest actor to play the titular character, has already been confirmed to return to the role in the movie.
According to The Mirror, some key details about the film – including locations, storyline and working title – have been revealed.
A source reportedly told the paper that Bond will travel to Croatia for the the film, which will be basaed on the 2001 novel Never Dream Of Dying. That book was written by Raymond Benson, who also wrote the movie tie-ins Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.
The plotline of Never Dream Of Dying sees Bond embark on a relationship with film star Tylyn Mignonne, whose husband has ties to the crime organisation The Union.
Other locations allegedly set to be included in the movie include Japan and the south of France. The source said: “Bond scriptwriters feel it could be the perfect follow-up to Spectre. They are hoping to film in Croatia next year.”
The working title for James Bond 25 is, apparently, Shatterhand.
So far, Craig, Naomie Harris (Miss Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q) and Rory Kinnear have all been confirmed to appear in the forthcoming movie. Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista are rumoured to return as villains.
Skyfall and Spectre director Sam Mendes will not work on James Bond 25. His replacement is yet to be announced, but, as The Independent reports, Yann Demange (’71), David Mackenzie (Hell Or High Water) and Denis Villenueve (Blade Runner 2049) are all in the running to take his place.
Most of which has already been debunked.
http://movieweb.com/james-bond-25-shatterhand-blind-villain-locations/
Exactly. That's why I take great pride in my limited edition steelbook trilogy of The Dark Knight. It's a highpoint in the action/superhero/spy franchise. Nolan got inspired by Peter Hunt's OHMSS. Mendes got inspired by Nolan. And the result is a cross-pollination of wonderful, slightly more serious films, in which each and every character were much more than its own historical pastiche.
"Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.
It's not "emotional drama" to give a damn about whether your protagonist lives or dies.
Now that I think about it, didn't Mendes say that SPECTRE is set "a few months after Skyfall"? Which would explain why Bond is just receiving his "personal effects recovered from Skyfall".
This means that either Bond 25 is set in the past (very unlikely) or it's going to be set 7 years after SPECTRE.
Granted, EON probably don't care (and they may not even be aware), but it's still pretty amusing to think about it.
Exciting. So we should get a title, cast, announcement party in under 18 months? Brilliant. :D
There's nothing to be worried about. Unlike Dalton, who dug deep and went gritty for his second film with an inimitable performance like no Bond actor before him, Craig decided to adopt a more conventional style for his last outing, to decidely mixed results (to put it mildly). Even some of his biggest fans have acknowledged that. I don't judge an actor (or a person or a country) by their history or what they did 10 years ago, but rather by what they've done lately. On that score, I won't miss him.
There's always a risk as you say, but I'm more than willing to take the chance. Moreover, change is good after more than a decade. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait another four years for the announcement based on prior behaviour (one year prior to B26's release).
Just because copy and paste is the "proven" Mendes approach doesn't mean everyone else has to adhere to that Modus operandi.
The idea you presented of Bond being outmatched with the odds against him is antithetical to most of film Bond. The films are at their best and most entertaining when Bond is a force to be reckoned with who's kicking ass while being smug and unflinching in the face of danger. Suspense is good, necessary, and enjoyable, but if you're suggesting that Bond should be put in a situation where he's in as seemingly hopeless a situation as the events of Dunkirk, then that would make for one heck of a dreary Bond movie. It a Nolan for me. To each their own though.
Music to my ears.
But surely there has to be dramatic tension somewhere along the road. Where's the fun in sitting for 2 hrs and watching someone just cruising? Even in the early Connery films, he would get ruffled and look stressed at how to cope with the situation. In Dr No, for instance he gets plonked down in Jamaica and largely has to work for himself. He has no idea who can be trusted, and he has to exercise caution at every turn, being very careful about who he puts his trust in. Of course Bond always comes out on top, but if he never even breaks a sweat, then the story becomes truly dull for me.
Sorry, but no it can't! And it never has been in five decades. Safe - of course - SF.
I really really wonder where so many of you have gotten the idea that Bond movies should be about drama? After all, that's not the way he became a legend.
Announced Dec. 4, 2014. I think filming began Dec. 8.
Fair enough if you feel that way, but I think you're hatred of SP is blinding you to the fact it's still a perfectly serviceable Bond performance from Craig.
Bit unfair comparing Dalton's second outing with SP. Surely LTK should be compared with QoS? Plus we never got late Dalton Bond. Who knows where it would have ended up. Probably he would have gone out on a less hard hitting entry.
Serviceable you say? That's a bit generous don't you think? Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be getting a bit more than that, weren't we? That was the whole promise of the Craig era. If I'm supposed to settle for 'serviceable' then let's get a younger actor in the role who can fully live up to cinematic Bond's glamour, style and uniqueness.
Of course LTK can be compared to QoS. That's not the point I was making. The point is I am not wed to this actor, his interpretation or his direct continuity story and troubles. While a valid argument could be made that Dalton's run was 'cut short' after two years, that he went out on a high (performance wise) and that he didn't have an opportunity to give us everything he could, the same can't be said for Craig. He has been given a chance to play all sides of Bond, just like Brosnan was given a chance.
Craig is not Tom Cruise. Bond is not his cinematic invention. He started as a rookie with the reboot and has taken the franchise back to the 'old school' style with SP. Now, in the interests of giving the franchise a fresh start after 12 years (since he was originally cast), I personally feel it's time to move on, especially since the whole era has been 'connected' in a tiresome way.
As I said, suspense is good, necessary, and enjoyable. The examples of drama and suspense in the Connery films that you cite are good, and well balanced in the films overall; they are not all that their respective films have to offer. If Nolan were to do a Bond movie, I fear that it would be a dull, overly serious, overly dramatic slog to sit through, that would put its entire focus on drama. Take Dunkirk for example. If you were to take the tone of that movie and translate it to a Bond movie, you would have exactly the overly dramatic Bond film I don't want. Nolan seems to think of himself as an artist, and cinema as a pure art, to the point where I believe a Nolan Bond movie would likely end up being a very stuffy affair.
I think SP and Craig's performance in it are one of the few things you and I seem to disagree on @bondjames but as for the rest, well said. Dalton's era was cut tragically short. With Brosnan you can make a case for him never really getting the film he wanted, since his suggestions about the direction he wanted to take it in were ignored more often than not, and I'd say he deserved a fifth film to rectify that.
But Craig has pretty much been able to do everything he wants with the role. He's done Fleming esque vulnerability, Dalton esque intensity and in the last two has tapped into the more classic Connery/Moore/Brosnan side of things. He's done funny Bond, suave Bond, angry brutal Bond, mopey alcoholic post tragedy Bond, rookie Bond, old man Bond, etc. Are there really any different facets left that he can tap into while still making it feel like he's playing the same person? He's had an unusual amount of creative control, he was a producer on SP and he got to handpick the director of his last two. He hasn't really had any restrictions, so at this point I think it's fair to say that he's been able to do all he can with the part. So not only does the story of his era feel done but so does his Bond. It's been 12 years. If he comes back he'll have been Bond longer than Moore was. It's time for a change.
More than anything and as you said, it's the time that has elapsed which makes me want a change. That and the interconnected nature of his era (connections which I find strained and forced). I just feel that his era is now weighed down, and to suddenly break with that for B25 in order to give him a 'standalone' sendoff (on a high, as some of his fans want) seems a bit excessive.
This is the kind of irresponsible attitude that gave us Brexit and Trump.
I am a small c conservative of the 'if it ain't broke' school of thought.
While I can see that some might argue Bond is broke (taking it a bit far IMO), I am not convinced anyone at EON has the tools or energy to fix it.
So best to stick with the best Bond in two decades IMO.
Tinkering by Babs and Purvis and Wade will only lead to more serious engine failure.