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
Talking about Gareth, what´s wrong with Gareth Edwards? His Godzilla film has lots of iconic images, there´s a lot of new, and quite fascinating interpretation, and at the same time he´s not overly respectless toward the tradition.
Talking about those trailers again, there´s a moment when the camera pans along a meeting of men at a table, which reminds me painfully of how much I miss the quiet camera work of the 60s and 70s Bond films, total perspectives with the camera moving seemingly exclusively for practical reasons, not for aesthetics.
Correct, sir. I do. :D
Like his once talked about version of CR starring Pierce Brosnan?
After Craig (no matter if it's SP or Bond 25) EON should make a new approach:
Do a one-time event like a Bond movie taking place in the 60's or 50's, cast an actor especially for that movie. Take a unique director like Fincher or Tarantino for it and let the director cast the actor!!
If that works, a sequel can be made. If not, EON can easily create a new era.
In any way, the times when the same actor can do 5 movies within a reasonable amount of years are over. If Craig does Bond 25 in 2018 it will have been a whopping 12 years for 5 movies. Everything more than 9 years for 5 movies is not acceptable.
God I'd've love to see that or read it. Then again, I have such a clear view of it in mind I think I could probably write it. Someplace on here or commanderbond.net there's probably a post from me describing in nauseating detail the way I wanted to see CR go right before it got made, where I basically invented a whole new act 3 instead of what they did in the film with whole cloth first hour.
I remember adapting CR as a short film script when I was in highschool (think it would have run about 40 minutes), and the only invention was adding a finale in which Bond faced off against the guy who carved his hand. I think they were on different boats, kind of a gunfight stance, but each bobbing up and down in frame before the guns came out.
Sorry man the camera work and aesthetic look like they have been filmed by the same guy who did Revenge
No thank you sir.
I quite enjoyed Hanna.
However, I do sometimes wonder whether too much emphasis is being put on the importance of 'character'. It strikes me that one of the most important things for a Bond director is the ability to tell a story simply and clearly (sounds easy but isn't), and to integrate action seemlessly with the plot. A sense of humour also helps.
I think Kenneth Brannagh should be given a crack. His Thor was highly entertaining. It had clearly defined and entertaining characters, but it wasn't a 'character study'.
There's an underrated simplicity to the best Bond films. Everything is really quite stripped back. I think Brannagh would be able to bring some of that tight, entertaining style back to Bond.
Kenneth Brannagh would be a marvelous choice! And he should play the villain as well, imagine that. And even have a go at the screenplay.
Brannagh still is highly underrated in my opinion. If you think of all that he has done in his career.
He did and also Thor....
Thor was a bit of a mess Frankensiten was OK not amazing not bad still haven't seen Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit.
Campbell directed Green Lantern and Vertical Limit. Certain directors find their feet with different films. Thor was excellent and I feel he could do a job with Bond.
Even a very good director can sometimes not save a picture.
Even Martin Campbell could have not saved Skyfall but it certainly would have been a lot better.
I think Brannagh proved himself enough to be good at many different things.
I think Thor is brilliant though - just the right tone. He knows exactly what he's trying to achieve with that film and does is brilliantly.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say his Cinderella is also excellent in terms of knowing what it wants to do and achieving it brilliantly.
I don't know enough about Branagh, but I was deeply disappointed with Shadow Recruit (what a terribly wasted opportunity with a franchise that was aching to be reinvented properly) and remember being somewhat nauseous and uncomfortable during Frankenstein.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, as long as he doesn't star in it (best to focus on one job at hand).
Fincher's movies often are shot in nearly available light conditions, and according to two of his DPs I spoke with, he loves to operate on the low end of the oscilloscope readings for the digital cameras. That's just totally at odds with any concept I have of the Bondverse (would be great for SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD perhaps, assuming you could come up with any justification for remaking a movie that was done absolutely right the first time out, and no, remaking it in color is NOT a good justification.)
EDIT ADDON: here's a piece on how Fincher likes to shoot wide open, on GONE GIRL:
http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/modern-family/
I'm right there with ya. I'd love nothing more than to see Fincher give us a mystery/thriller Bond flick. He tops my short list of desired directors.
I quite liked Shadow Recruit. It deserved a bit more slack than it got. I would happily pay to see a sequel. Heck, Branagh got a good performance out of Keira Knightley in that, which I think is an accomplishment in itself.
http://collider.com/james-bond-25-director/