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
Agreed. I'd rather like them from a more impersonal angle, though. They are a sinister organisation, operating in the deep shadows (I think the meeting in SP set things up bloody well, up to the coockoo thing.) Blofeld has to learn about Bond through failure, not share a past with him. And yes, I want the bald dude. ;-)
Absolutely, absolutely. Has to be done right.
Couldn't agree more.
I do hope they leave them alone for a film or two and build up to their reveal in Bond #7's timeline. They need some distance from NTTD after they killed Spectre on screen in my opinion
Can’t really explain why; I love the DB5 but basically hope to never see it again. The PPK though I want to be constant.
I agree. Keep the PPK. Some romantic notions from the past (funny thing to say about a gun) do not have to 'evolve' IMO, even if the world around Bond does. The P99 was OK, but the PPK is as much a part of the "Bond Definition" to me as the tux, awesome cars and Wodka-Martinis.
Even if one accepts that each Bond series exists in a different timeline or universe, the appearance of Blofeld and SPECTRE once again will feel creatively bankrupt. What will Blofeld do this time? Who cares? Bond will foul up his plans yet again. And, as always, ESB will get away. Let's move on from Bond vs. Blofeld.
I guess that Blofeld and Spectre were defeated by two external forces: Safin, and Kevin "I'm eternally pissed at Ian Fleming" McClory. ;-)
Seriously, though, I get what you're saying. But I want to give them one more chance. It may be a poor comparison, but part of me thinks Joker. "Another Joker" in 2008? "Another Joker" in 2019? And yet, we continue to be excited about the prospect of seeing yet "another Joker". So maybe Blofeld is not that different to us, Bond fans. I don't know. How they handle the character is the deciding factor, no doubt.
For the most part, the Joker is done fairly well (Jared Leto and SS’s script were bad for each other). As for Bond vs Blofeld, I feel like any arch villain (James Moriarty, Lex Luthor etc.) there should always have a presence, to keep our hero on their toes. So Blofeld and Spectre should come back, it’s simply how they are portrayed. Christoph Waltz was great casting, let down by bad material. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen next time. If EON wants a villain who has a personal connection for hating Bond, bring back Alec Trevelyan.
I suppose the character could be reimagined, but there needs to be that personal element. The two men don't have to be childhood enemies, but their paths need to have crossed with each other and both need that very specific antagonism that puts the character above any other Bond villain. It's why I always say they missed a good opportunity in SP. Essentially Blofeld (or at least SPECTRE) was responsible for Vesper's death, so the film could had ample opportunity to craft a character not dissimilar to dynamic in the novels. Instead they seemed to try and one up the personal element by having Bond and Blofeld know each other as kids, which at best created little drama and fell flat, and at worst annoyed fans.
Directed by M Night Shyamalan.
I find Nolan doesn't do jokes or any kind of self-mockery and makes incredibly sexless films, and doesn't even really do fun, so for me has the wrong sensibilities for Bond. Mendes was perfect. I would not want a Nolan Bond film.
This might be true of his recent work, but the first two DARK KNIGHT films had plenty of humorous "fun" moments. Also, he has a deep passion for Bond, TSWLM is one of his favourite films in the series, I feel like he would show the franchise the proper reverance it deserves and not nolanify every aspect.
💯 %… Nolan is a wet napkin.
His films have become beautifully shots bore-fests with incredible talent whispering for three hours. There’s no care-free zest to anything he’s done. It’s all ultra-serious, which, as @mtm said above, lack in any kind of fun, and god forbid, self deprecation on the part of the filmmaker himself.
He certainly has never written a great female role and his action is clunky… Just, no….
Edgar Wright B-)
I think the next director should have that zest and fun that Wright always brings to his films, but balanced with a mature and strong and textured way of telling visual tales.
For as much as I like Wright’s films (and I genuinely do), I scratch the surface and there’s not a lot underneath.
I didn't find them much fun, but obviously everyone sees things differently so that's fair enough. And the lack of sexiness or indulgence or punch-the-air moments just makes me think he'd be a bad fit. Plus Tenet was the closest thing to a Bond he's done and I thought it was really quite boring.
He's good at tense seriousness, but everyone has been saying how they've had enough of that with the Craig films.
In some ways I think his films are characterised by a sort of stripped-back lack-of-style style, if you know what I mean. He's not about grand production design but modernist starkness; another thing I wouldn't really want with Bond.
Yes I want to enjoy Wright's stuff more than I do. I like the way he does things but they never quite gel into being great movies for me.
What I love about him is not just the tone and the kinetic nature of his directing, but his style is so unmistakably british. A Edgar Wright Bond film would feel so homegrown and authentic IMO.
I was impressed with his Ant-Man ideas before he got canned. Really played with and developed the dynamics of that character's abilities for action. Hope he has something up his sleeve for Bond, and would love to see it.
It has been three and a half years since The Rise of the Skywalker— and at one time they kept promising more episodes to follow new characters that would branch out from this last film (but keep hiring and firing writers and directors and we are no where close to a new film….).
It took fifteen years to bring an 80 year old Indy Jones back on screen for his latest adventure.
The last Pirates film was six years ago (again, they keep talking about another film that’s never materialized).
The Bourne films came out in ‘02, ‘04 and then ‘07 and ‘12 and then ‘16….
The Mission: Impossible films were released: ‘96, ‘00, ‘06, ‘11, ‘15, ‘18, ‘23/‘24… (they were able to do back to backs (with exceptional stress and challenges and that’s why back to back films are so rare (it takes a colossal effort to make it succeed and that’s why most franchises don’t attempt it— too many things could go wrong)).
John Wick 2014, ‘17, 19, ‘23.
About the only franchise that can pump out a film every two years is F&F— but that’s because they’re mainly created through no story and CGI wizardry.
My point is Mendes: most of the above films come out, generally, with longer and longer gaps. Their budgets increase and with that, more stakes, more prep, more time to give the creatives breathing space.
And most of them don’t have the budgets of Bond (the larger the budgets, the more work to be done).
Franchise/tent-pole films are huge undertakings nowadays, on a scale that Cubby and Saltzman could only imagine. Pumping out a film every two years nowadays and you can watch the quality of films stoop to new levels of low and also, as other series are making note of : audience fatigue (this is a very real phenomenon).
Be patient. Enjoy the other films in the EoN catalogue.
There is a process, and it’s going to take time.
And if there was never another Bond film again, be thankful that you have 25 films (!) to watch over and over.
Or, one day your dream may come true and Amazon swallows Bond and produce a facsimile of what came before…
So take three years of MGM’s issues and three years of Covid, and what’d you get? Over half a decade of pauses inside of 13 years that effectively wiped out any development coming out of EoN HQ!!
Six years where they couldn’t work. Out of thirteen years.
Almost 50% of the time you’re complaining about was literally out of their hands. The other years were taken up with development, pre production, filming, post and releases and a 60th anniversary, and now…. Re-introducing the character!!!
Sorry @Mendes4Lyfe … but you’re conveniently deleting history.
Fact is we’re never gonna get a Bond film every two years ever again, and we should be glad. I want Bond films to be special events, not something churned out by Disney.
The Sequel Trilogy for example would have greatly benefitted from having three year intervals. But because of Disney’s greed, they were rushed and it showed. I don’t want that to happen to Bond. We saw that with the subpar QOS.
If you read my post above you would see how I explained how those gaps could have been avoided by EON simply getting a move on after release of the previous film, (like they did in the old days) and not waiting 1 or 2 years before starting the process in motion. If directly after the release of SP in late they took 1 - 2 months off and then got to work and began the script writing process, there's no reason they couldn't have finished the movie by late 2019, that's plenty of time even for EON. That way they would avoid the pandemic entirely, infact they could use that time busy on the script of Bond 26 whilst everyone is locked down so that starting in late 2021 when the lockdowns lifted they would have been ready to move ahead with filming. And so on and so forth. These long stretches of dead time are all of EON own making, and could have easily been avoided by just being on the ball. If you plan to saunter around hope things will fit nicely into place, then ofcourse you're going to run into problems.