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
Could very well be, but does nothing for me, either. Trying too hard = not interesting to me. Presumably is interesting for some, though. Underwear/bikini pics (or nudes pics, for that matter) of women have always been popular with men. I think there is generally less interest from women for similar pics of men.
I don't find people attractive based on only, or even primarily on looks, and I have a really hard time understanding the idea that certain people are supposedly attractive simply because of how they look. Or that people are sexier the less clothes they have on (the idea behind underwear pics, surely). Those seem to be more male things, but many women go for them as well. Just doesn't work for me.
And bulking up... well, doesn't make a guy attractive to me if he isn't otherwise, and too much of that is just eww. There are fashions with what's considered "attractive" as well as anything else. Nowadays men are expected to bulk up for certain roles, but that wasn't always the case - whether it's more for women or men, well, I suspect more for men, actually, and I don't mean gay men, but men in general. They are the main target audience for most of those movies, too. I suppose it started with people like Schwarzenegger and Stallone and people like that, and they were more for men than women as well.
Facial hair has been fashionable for several years already, and personally I wish that fashion would pass sooner rather than later. It has also given men who generally don't give much of a crap about fashion or how they look an excuse not to shave, and one suspects that when the fashion passes they still won't.
Currently the situation regarding facial hair is such that... one sees a pic of an actor clean-shaven, and it's "whaaa... you got a new job?" Then the facial hair grows back, not even rumours of any job, but one remains suspicious of something being up. A couple of months later one sees some new pics and thinks "hey, you look so much younger... oh wait, clean-shaven again!" Definitely a job, but what? Some weeks later one listens to a director discuss what he's working on, and he mentions he has done make-up tests with an actor... "Bingo!" When the announcement appears in the trades a couple of weeks later, and people are "Whatttt?" one is just "well, fully expected that bit of news, it was obvious wasn't it?" :D (I saw that several people who heard that interview - whether they had seen those pics or not - made the same conclusions, based also on director's words, and knowledge of that actor-director relationship being such that a new collaboration was just a question of time. The interviewer seemed clueless, but what do they know. ;) (Bale-McKay-Cheney, btw.)
I agree that Cate Blanchett is brilliant, and gorgeous. I'm surprised you find her attractive considering her age. ;) So maybe age isn't that important? I'd also say that she is indeed attractive - and being beautiful doesn't really make her so, but the combination of personality and talent. - There are plenty of good looking people who are just good looking. (And women can say that sort of things about women, with no problem, men usually can't, which I find weird and unfortunate. I think it was @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 who recently said something about that issue somewhere...).
Attractive personalities make attractive people, not certain types of looks (neither face nor body). To me that is. There are fashions of what is supposed to be attractive. Nowadays there's a cookie cutter line of actors that are supposedly attractive, and I have trouble telling them apart, and my general view regarding them is "meh". Earlier it was somewhat different, but the idea was the same. Supposedly attractive people, due to looks.
An example from way back: after seeing Thelma and Louise a female friend commented how hot the young guy (Brad Pitt, unknown to us and most others at the time) was in it. My view was that well, he was pretty, but so what, he (the character) was a jerk, and I didn't see him as attractive at all, just a pretty jerk. Not that a different type of character would have made a difference (as I later found), but an unpleasant character didn't help.
Bland never helps, either (the cookie cutter stars of certain types of looks), but Hollywood favors them, so they must appeal to some people, I suppose. Or maybe they don't, just the movies do, and the actors are interchangeable blank canvasses? (Those movies don't appeal to me, either, so I can't tell what the attraction is.) I know those guys are supposed to appeal to women, and do to some. Most of them aren't even that young, so it's not that they look like kids to me, either. There's just nothing interesting there - I mean just the pretty isn't it.
Yes, she would.
I'm afraid he wouldn't be available.
Personally I have nothing against big names.
Not sure about Greengrass, but I would be very interested in Fincher.
Edgar Wright has talent, no doubt. But there's still something adolescent about his film making IMO.
The film needed to 'bite' harder, but I'm not sure he has it in him.
Needs more films under the belt, needs maturity as a film-maker. Let's revisit the Bond discussion for him in ten years.
I've always had a 'thing' for Blanchett @Tuulia, ever since The Talented Mr. Ripley and The Gift. So even though she's past her prime I'm a huge proponent of hers. Bottom line though is she is great at what she does and is very classy in an old school sort regal of way. That naturally finds its way into her characters as well and I find that appealing. So yes, my interest in her has to do with her characters, style, & commitment as much as her physical look.
I agree with you on the male 'bulking' up, underpant spreads and facial hair. I'd like to see a bit less of all of that too personally.
Truly, his underwear spread looked more satire than sexy (if it were satire, I'd perhaps have more respect for him, but, alas.....)
Yeah, that was sort of embarrassing. Not that men in underwear is any worse idea than women in underwear, but geez, that one was bad. A lot of the blame goes to photographer, actually, for taking such bad pics as if they were clueless of what they were doing.
Is it Friday yet?
So before we start dreaming about dream casts, which sadly I also did on numerous occassions (remember I applauded the Oscar-heavy star casts back in 2011), we can only hope Wurvis & Pade show some genuine creative interest in the Bond franchise and write a slam-dunk, ff-ing good, trendsetting, ingenious, original Bond story. And if they ran out of ideas, which sadly they did on numerous occassions, then read "Trigger Mortis" or "You Only Live Twice" or a Dynamite comic and adapt that!
In terms of Blanchett: in terms of her acting, she is definitely in her prime. Her skillset has improved due to the diversity of roles that she has attempted over the years, so much so that she can handle nearly anything these days. There are some like her who've really been diverse & stretched themselves to the best of their abilities, and they are to be commended.
The next Bond really does need a great screenwriter as THE prime requirement. We know from previous Bonds that if the characters, set pieces, plot, dialogue is poor, then its a lost cause.
IMHO the script is the foundation of the project, if its weak/cracked, it won't produce anything of quality
I can't say I love SF, nor, for that matter, can I draw any parallels with Nolan's Dunkirk. Aside from M, what other compelling characters were there in SF? Surely not the villain with the magic keyboard that could blow up MI6 HQ, escape from a secure cell and prance around the London Underground unchallenged? As you might have guessed, I'm still not at peace with Bond having lifted many of its set-pieces from The Dark Knight.
theres never going to be much tension in that scenario. I think we can all guess the outcome.
It depends on how they go about it.
Chandler once made a distinction between authors who write stories and authors who write writing (of which class he considered himself).
I think a similar distinction could be useful here, in that it could be said there are filmmakers who film stories and those who 'film film.'
Every medium has its advantages when it comes to telling stories, and I think each succeeds most often when it uses those advantages. People often complain of novel to film adaptations being bad, for example. Part of this comes down to the filmmaker's 'filming the novel,' focusing too much on the story (which will never be duplicated better than it was in the imagination, as imagination is the intended result of prose) instead of translating the story into image.
I think the more focused a film is on story alone, the more impossible it then becomes for that film to surpass its initial script. The CHiPs script as directed by Christopher Nolan is still going be a hunk of junk.
As a film begin to dabble in more of what is accomplishable only in the art of film, the importance of the script goes down. The quality of DUNKIRK, as mentioned, does not in the end come down to its script.
I was thinking about Dunkirk and Nolan's approach to not seeing the enemy, only in silhouette or hidden in a cockpit. Could this be a future idea, where we never actually get to see what Bond's enemies look like in the first movie, remaining a mystery until the second feature? Sure, it smacks of Blofeld in FRWL but when has an old idea stopped Nolan from repeating it?
I think one of the big things Nolan would bring (and so far as Bond goes I'm neither pro- nor anti-Nolan) is a sense of ambition. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a go at an Adam-style set.
Regardless, I have no doubts that, unlike Mendes, if Nolan were directing the money would go up on the screen.
Any other takers out there that might have a guess on Nolan's 007 concept not done yet?
After all, if it happens, we dont want to be watching a Nolan film, we want to be watching a Bond film. No actor is bigger than Bond and no director either.
I'd like to see a Nolan directed 60s era Bond movie closer to the books and maybe just that one before they move forward again with a new actor and team.
--
I thought there were several interesting characters in SF. Mallory, Q, Eve, Severine, Kincaide and of course Silva. Mansfield isn't what draws me to the film. Rather it's all the other characters. I empathize with them and can understand their motivations and reasons for their behaviour. They're all likable and relatable to me in some way shape or form. Yes, I agree that a lot is lifted from Nolans TDK, but given how seminal that film was, it's not a bad place to start.
I wasn't making any comparisons between SF & Dunkirk though. The former is a character based film. The latter is purely visual and aural. There's very little focus on character development in Dunkirk. SF is lambasted for having a weak plot but the character interaction is very good imho.
RE: your question about what Nolan has in store for Bond: I think he'll strip it back to its roots and focus on the unique style of Bond. He's a visual film maker, so I think he will try to create a film which captures the spirit of what moved him about OO7 when he was younger. That means extraordinary atmosphere, location work, stunts, score, sets, cinematography & a real inimitable British class. I definitely agree that he'd probably bring a more Adam'esque flavour to the whole thing. He mentioned in a recent interview that he loved the combination of scale, exoticism, believability & extraordinariness of the earlier Bond films.
With regards to SF, and each to his/her own, but one of the things that frustrated me the most in SF was the characterization. I didn't particularly warm to either Moneypenny or Q as they were written as rather amateurish; each making huge mistakes that cost lives which would've got them the sack. Mallory was simply there as a sounding board to explain to the audience the irrelevance of the 007 program and M's frustrations. Kincaide was only there mostly as a cameo and to relay a totally garbled Fleming backstory about Skyfall and the Young Master Bruce, cough, I mean James Junior. Sure, the actors were all credible in their delivery, but these were are all seasoned thespians, so that much was to be expected. Sorry, but I just don't dig SF or the changes they made to accommodate his un-Fleming ancestral home that just feels it coincides with Bruce Wayne Manor for the sake of it.