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
Hold on now, @QuantumOrganization, that is entirely uncalled for. @DaltonCraig007 is a veteran member whose opinion is highly valued.
You stated that the Russos could do a good Bond film--and I agree by the way--and that they could stay within the 2 hour frame (though I'm not sure why that should have to be the case). DaltonCraig007 then pointed out that Civil War (and Winter Soldier too for that matter) went over 120 minutes by at least a quarter of an hour. And that's half of their directing resume if you don't count the coda to Ant-Man. Their next Avengers films aren't likely to stay below 120 minutes either. So instead of not using his brain, DaltonCraig007 made a very fair point.
I agree, this is his time. If Dunkirk kills it at the box office expect EON to give the go ahead and move forward. I think summer 2020 is the earliest we can expect such a film to materialize, as Nolan is a fan of Summers release dates and 5 full years feels too long to wait. When you think about it, it makes sense that Bond 25 is helmed by an English director of Nolan's stature. The timing just feels right.
Seriously. Look at any Nolan film. Everything looks as if it were slightly underexposed. I don´t mind Nolan doing that, if that´s his thing. But there´s no way he would change that on a Bond film, and that alone should rule him out. Beside him being the most overrated director of our times. He can get all the praise in the world for Dunkirk, that won´t make him anywhere near suitable for helming a Bond film.
If EoN wants Nolan, the time to get him is now. Not after he does one more film.
If they let it go this time around, they may miss the boat.
I 100% agree, there's no time like the present. Nolan would only be interested in establishing his own Bond, so there's only maybe 3 opportunities left to get him to direct a film in this series. It would be such just the shot in the arm that's needed at the moment. Just the announcement alone that Nolan is directing would be enough to reenergize the fandom and start the hype machine back up. They probably going to take an extended break anyway, so why not come back with something truly special?
Yes, Garland mostly traffics in Sci-fi, but he conceived a brilliant Bond-like villain in Nathan Bateman in Ex Machina, and his "lair" was very Bond-like, as well.
His latest film is out soon, and it appears his slate is clean after that.
Yes. Hardy isn't the best choice, but he also isn't a bad choice. Plus, he's English and so is Nolan. Two big +'s in my book.
My ultimate dream film remains a Campbell and Turner partnership, but Nolan/Hardy is still brilliant. I would have no complaints about that.
Would be happy to see Garland write or direct or both.
Yep
This would be an exciting duo!
I'd be more than okay with this being the lineup.
Terrible idea. Might as well let Michael Bay throw his hat in the ring as well. I'd almost rather have Tamahori back than let a Marvel director get his CGI stained hands on Bond.
Mirrors my thoughts to a T.
Yes, also would be a wise choice
I agree on Maud Adams in OP, liked her at the time and still do. And I agree they need more of that.
Not really. I've never gotten it. Why would women need to be half the age of the men to be considered attractive enough? Obviously what and who anyone finds attractive is always a personal opinion, in itself, but I don't get the demand for huge age differences that many men seem to have. It has been and continues to be very common in movies, so you have the Hollywood view right there. I actually don't understand why men want to see that, and I can rarely take such pairings in movies seriously, it just seems to be there to please the male audiences (and producers, studio heads, directors, in some cases maybe also actors if they're so inclined and powerful enough).
Well, nothing wrong with a big name. Ego is another thing entirely, people with small names can have terrible egos just as well, and people with big names can be very humble and collaborative.
It's the same reason why most male heroes these days tend to 'bulk up' when they're cast in major roles. Bale did it for BB. Craig did it for CR. Affleck did it for BvS. Is it because of some cave like historic fantasy of women for a Fabio'esque hero to whisk them away and protect them? Who knows? There certainly seems to be less interest in the 'lean' male hero these days, and perhaps that is to pander to female preferences? More and more young actors are sporting unshaven (cave like?) looks and are seen in their underwear on magazine covers. Why is this? Surely it's for women because it does nothing for me.
All I can say is EON should have cast Cate Blanchett in a Bond film. It's probably too late now, but she is going to show everyone how brilliant she is (as if there was any doubt) in Thor Ragnarok. I might add that I find her extremely attractive as well.
There's some truth to that. But aside from a cultural ideal, I am sure that Stewart and Grant, and even Connery, for that matter, would have had bigger physiques if they had the technology and knowledge then that we do now. Almost anyone can get ripped, in almost no time, if working with a dietician and personal trainer.