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
Mendes clearly didn't have another idea for a story in him and was just winging it. Shame because all the elements were there for a good film.
@defloria I didn't say they are "completely producer driven", but they ARE producer driven to a very large extent.
Or, to be specific, Sam Mendes aside, who had a lot of creative freedom, the directors are hired hands. Broccoli and Wilson choose the lead actor, the director, the locations, the threats that James Bond will face. There is a 2015 NYT article where the creative team discusses how the producers decide on the premise and the villain and their hands-on approach to the films.
Hell, during production of the last film, BB insisted the main players, the director and the writers read YOLT!!!.....
Bond films aside, all films are hugely collaborative efforts. And it starts with the producers.
I also know people closely associated with these productions, and BB and MGW are very present with the day to day operations and their management is a hands on approach. As their father before them warned, if anyone screws this up, let it be them, not anyone else.
They've pretty much taken this approach to heart.
And I don't think there's anyway you or me or anyone can assume what the producers need or don't need. They will decide the course of the next film, they will decide on the director-- newbie or not (and starting a new era, the assumption is the budget will be leaner, so an up and coming director vs an expensive veteran probably makes sense-- especially because of the producers hands on approach), and they will choose the next actor. Under their guidance shall the film roll.
EDIT: just an excerpt to show their obsessive hands on approach and control:
“the Broccolis have kept as much control over the franchise as possible. While the studio, MGM, has influence over the final product, Broccoli and Wilson can often overrule or out-argue studio executives. All four of the Pierce Brosnan films were big box-office hits, but the Broccolis chose not to have him back for Casino Royale and managed to convince reluctant executives that the series needed to be completely rebooted. Enter Daniel Craig. Director Roger Spottiswoode, who worked for the Broccolis on their second production, 1997’s Tomorrow Never Dies, told the Los Angeles Times: “Barbara and Michael have infinitely more to do with it than any studio. MGM would come up with some new idea and Barbara would say, ‘That’s not right for Bond.’ ” In the book Some Kind of Hero: The Remarkable Story of the James Bond Films, director Michael Apted (The World Is Not Enough) recalls that he wanted Bond to talk to a woman about his past, but Broccoli and Wilson vetoed it, saying that Bond “never reveals anything about himself.”
Their obsession with what’s right for Bond was inherited from Cubby Broccoli”
Craig which included, Bond stabbing one of the main villains in the BACK, Making Bond and Blofeld foster brothers, giving the world's greatest villain the worst reintroduction and motivation of all time, killing off Mathis, creating Quantum and then folding it into Spectre in a weak recon, killing off Felix, killing off Blofeld and destroying Spectre. Killing off Bond was OK just to erase the awful universe that EON created. Craig was great as Bond but the world he inhabited was a misfire {Except for most of CR} for the last fifteen year. I just don't want to see that repeated.
@delfloria … those are choices that were developed during the writing process.
I personally loved this era, but the above is more about scriptwriting than it was directing.
Point well taken but Dent was a pretty minor villain.
It’s the kind of thing that made Bond stand out in the 60s. It shows while he can be heroic he can also be a bastard. It was something you never saw John Wayne or James Stewart do in their movies. Along with moments like using a woman as a human shield in GF/TB.
The 60s Bond films, along with the Dollars trilogy with Clint Eastwood, really ignited the anti-hero archetype that’s more familiar in films today.
I guess it never sat well with me because I was looking forward to a major dust up between these two because they were so physically matched. Just though it was really anticlimactic. Heck.................. yes, stabbing someone in the back is a bad thing.
It’s the perfect kill with Silva because of how poetic it is. Silva is all about 21st century computer hacking, and Bond just kills him with something as simple and old fashioned as a Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife. “Last rat standing”.
True.............much more about writing than directing. Everyone has their personal favorite era and there is nothing wrong with that. I grew up during the Dr No through OHMSS film era so I'm predisposed to a Bond without personal baggage.
That’s fair @delfloria … although I grew up in the Moore Era, it was also the home video generation and my father was a Connery-first-and-only-Bond fan, so I became a James Bond fan by gobbling up the Connery films over and over and over (and then the Fleming books).
Connery, and the era, was my favourite… But now Craig’s era is side by side with it… And, after watching Craig come full circle, he is clearly my number one James Bond (something I never thought I’d say… Even as I went into NTTD, I still viewed Connery as the best… After that viewing, I walked out with a new favourite actor in the role)…
"There’s no conversation being had at the moment. [Series producer] Barbara Broccoli has been heavily involved in other projects. You know, it’s not unusual for there to be quite a big gap between different Bonds, it has been known to have a five-year gap. So, no, nothing".
Five year gap.......... par for the course. As I've said before it can't be ignored that Cubby did nothing but the Bond films while Eon now does other film and TV projects including the production of Broadway plays. there is just so much time in the day and braincells one can spread around.
It’s good that as a film producer, BB is doing other projects. So much go into modern blockbusters nowadays that if that’s all you’re working, there is genuine burnout. The previously untouchable Kevin Feign is suddenly looking very mortal with his output.
As a scriptwriter, if I was locked into one genre with the same characters over and over, I’d lose my passion quite quickly.
I’m all for BB taking on other projects, and then coming back to Bond with renewed energy and curiosity — which is something they need to keep the series from going stale after 60 plus years!
I think Sam Peckinpah's leads were anti-heroes as well.
5 years if we're lucky...
put it this way:
3 years from writing the script to the Premier
+ 6 months to a year for casting bond
+ 6 months to a year for behind the scenes shenanigans/possible strike action
we probably won't see bond 26 completed until sometime in 2027 for the 65th anniversary. I-)
To try to save his boss.
Sounds like Bond to me.
Yeah I think he’s said that Skyfall was his one attempt at a Bond so he threw everything at it, and it was a massive success; and then they asked for another and there wasn’t anything there. I think he had some good ideas eventually, but the story just fell apart on him and the studio system didn’t allow enough time for that sort of thing. I don’t entirely blame him; these things just happen. And I don’t think it detracts from Skyfall being absolutely superb.
IMO Craig was a great Bond, but not the best. Nor do I believe his films sit side by side Connery's. No question the new films are technically superior, but they simply are not as entertaining as the early Bond films, which doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable. There's something about those early films the successors have not been able to recreate. Was it Connery alone? Hard to say.
I agree, I'm amazed when I watch a 60's bond film and think "we have technology now that puts these old films to shame, we have THE ABILITY the pull off things far more impressive and yet we haven't even come close to matching them for excitement, tension, pacing and class". They really are in a league of their own.
I think it was a magical time @CrabKey . Lightning in a bottle. Fleming, Maibaum, Young, Barry, the art direction... It can't be recaptured, nor should it be attempted....
As far as the Craig Era, it sits side by side the Golden Era (for me), not because it tried to emulate the magical sixties, but because they stretched the character in ways I only imagined, yet kept him true to the spirit of James Bond, in my opinion.
I got something more out of Craig-Bond than any other-- and that includes the immortal Sean Connery. I wish my Dad was here to see it...
Bond could have just as easily tackled him and a rousing dust up could have capped the film off and tightened the suspense. A real missed opportunity.
IMHO, Nope, did not reach it's potential.