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
Matthew Vaughn is another choice that I've been preaching since X-Men First Class and even more so since Kingsman.
He's certainly a choice that would be in line with their last couple, but there's a chance he could do a Forster and not a Mendes (for SF at least). Still, if his Blade Runner sequel turns out well, I'd probably be on board with him doing Bond.
Villenueve is one that EON should definitely be having conversations with regarding the next film. If they could land either him or David Fincher, I'd suddenly find myself pretty excited for the next film.
Right. That is just rubbish.
Says you I think TWINE is one of the best bond films
What should also be said about this is that the franchise has never been in the position it currently is in. People who are the best at what they do in the entertainment field want to be a part of the films now. Why go backwards when there is, potentially, an exciting future to be had due to the talent that could potentially be brought on board?
Before EON landed Forster and Mendes, it was just the case of fans making unrealistic wishlists of directors that would never come true. That was the only way names like Vilanueve, Fincher, or Nolan would ever come up in such discussions. Now, would anyone truly be surprised if any of the bigger name directors out there today were announced to to the next Bond film? Can't say that I would, and that's fairly exciting, I think.
You surely can't expect people to take you seriously, when you make comments like this.
Spectre, on the other hand, cost anywhere between $200 and $300 million to make, depending on which numbers you want to look at.
Eastwood is a fine filmmaker, but he's also somewhat of an anomaly. Taking on something as massive as Bond would, I imagine, require a decent amount of stamina, something not many people in their 80s or 90s are likely to have. Not to say that it's impossible, but just not likely.
That said, I think a Sir Ridley Bond flick would be interesting.
Mod Edit - Please watch your language @JamesBondKenya.
Michael Apted
Marc Forster
Ridley Scott
Alfonso Cuaron
After seeing this film and pondering over it for a few weeks, I can't help but think that it could have been so much more. TWINE is a bond film constucted of superb parts but lacking as a whole. Robert Caryle as the baddie had his many fans across UK and the rest of the world salivating at the prospect of that most talented of young British actors turning his hand towards Bond villany. But where was he in this film? Yes he had all the glorious menacing presance we had hoped for, but he hardly appeared in the film, the role of head bad 'guy' being given to the entirely un-sinister Sophie Marcau.
Denise Richards made a suitably beautiful Bond girl, but her role in the film was 'wedged in'. After the escape from the missile silo, she had no reason to tag along with Bond, in fact her presence was absurd as 007 is supposed to be a top secret agent. And OK, the romance in Bond films is rarely convincing, but this one just seemed to spring from nowhere, just to have the out of place Roger Moore style ending (and Pierce is no Roger Moore). The action sequences were uninspiring, with the obvious exception of the blistering pre-credits scenes (which are the highlight of the whole film). John Cleese is also Austin Powers than Bond.
The 'set looking locations' used were also rather dull and uninteresting, again with the exception of the Greenwich scenes. The real shame is that there were some great elements. Nonetheless, I can't help thinking that this film could have been so much better.
The guy can film action, thats for sure.
I think everyone wishing for all these great "dramatic" directors are missing the point. Bond films are action/adventures at their base level. Get a guy(or gal) who has proven chops in directing superb action.
If the actors and script are decent then the queiter, dramatic scenes will sort themselves out.
Also, can't see the logic in "dramatic scenes will sort themselves out", these IMHO take just as much skill and touch as action.