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
What do we think of Eggers, who did the Northman? He recently said he would never do a contemporary-setting film, but if he approached Bond almost as a period-piece (taking flourishes from the 60s and making them work today) I wonder if he'd be up for the challenge. He is seemingly great at focusing on historical accuracy and building his character's worlds with a lot of detail. He's American, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Oppenheimer, right? I wasn't the biggest fan of Dunkirk but I found it technically accomplished (much more so than he usually is). I'm not sure if it'll be similar and I never know what to expect from Nolan, to give him credit. But yeah, I just don't think he's up to Bond.
I'm fine with Martin Campbell returning, but the story/script will have to be solid. I can see someone like David Mackenzie doing something unique with Bond 26 too.
Mackenzie is still my choice! He knows how to tell a story, good with actors and can handle action!
Am not in the Nolan/Villeneuve camp either! Talented, technically proficient Directors, but not a right fit for Bond!
I have to think they're open to a few options. What makes sense to me: if they can get Nolan and like his vision, I bet they wouldn't say no. I think they'll meet with Fukunaga, hear his take on who Bond should be this time, and if they like that they may not say no. And then they will have other contingencies, and probably meet with quite a few people. I think Waller-Bridge gets a callback for her ideas and perspective, they may have asked Craig for his final ideas before he's gone for good, and hell, they may circle back and give Sam Mendes a shot a redemption. He's technically "reinvigorated" the franchise already once with Skyfall, and they could see that as enough of a qualifier to launch a new Bond. But I bet they start with those closest to them and to the Oscars or with Oscar potential, which is all of the names I mentioned, in my view. They may view, though, that they have Zimmer somewhat in their pocket for good now, so I doubt we ever get a true "workman composer" doing the music ever again, even though that's kind of what Zimmer is.
To me, those asking for a return of Martin Campbell may end up getting a return of Sam Mendes, if they keep pushing in that direction. And I do think the fans have some sway of the course of things, at least when the franchise is in its lulls.
Yes, there's something about him as a Director I think might work. Not saying every film he's made has been successful, but I can imagine someone like that doing something fresh and unique with a bit of guidance from the producers regarding a film of that scale (although I suspect the budget for the next Bond film will be about £200 Million or under).
You know.....Campbell was not my favorite with GE because he somewhat watered down the kind of grit that the prior Dalton film had.....notice how little blood was shown in the facility despite the deadly ordeal.
But after watching CR and noticing how well he brought back the grit to Bond and seeing the attention to the beautiful setpieces, he earned my respect. I caught onto his tropes....in both GE and CR he likes to narrow in the camera on alarm horns.
But my favorite style of Campbell is when he narrows in on the eyes of the protagonist while they are in a state of shock or incapacitated. He does a good job of making sure the audience not only sees but also feels the vibe of loneliness of the character. By the time Bond wakes up in the hospital after the opening the scene with a close-up shot of his eyes, you begin to accept "ok, this is the new Bond and we will accept/respect him".
If Campbell comes back, we don't need another GE....even he has said in interviews how ridiculous the idea of one man saving the world for a megalomaniac who wants world domination is. He was getting bored on the set while filming the ending scene of GE where Bond and 006 are fighting at the satellite amidst all the destruction.
Any director can never go wrong by keeping Bond down-to-earth. In fact, lower budget sets can save enough money to increase profits and allow for focus on the quality of characters/acting and other elements of the film.
I think this is the time for him to direct a Bond film after he got rejected to direct NTTD.
To be fair, look at the final fight between Trevelyan and Bond at the end of GE. I'd say it's actually grittier and more realistic than even the staircase fight in CR. Aside from that, yeah, GE is more of a 'classic movie Bond' plot compared to CR, but I'd also say that was more of a decision taken by the producers and writers, and Campbell arguably injected something a bit more 'down to earth' in his direction.
I really want Hodge's script to be released at some point. I enjoyed his and Boyle's work on Trance, and I think that film is a major reason why they gave him a go. The problem seemed to be (as far as I can tell - no one seems to know for sure) that the whole thing was a bit too experimental for the BB, MGW and Craig's tastes... which kinda makes sense as Trance is a bit bonkers, haha. I don't think he'll get another chance to direct Bond 26 for this reason. No slight against Boyle, if they let Steven Soderbergh write/direct a Bond film I suspect they'd have a similar situation - a quirky, unusual premise for a film but a potentially disastrous Bond film.
The Craig films have shown the benefits of having directors who are actually cinematically gifted. You get films with unparalleled beauty and art. Not soulless marvel products.
Campbell doesn't necessarily create that grit on his own. The script did about 75% or more of that work for him...and he had a terrific script to work from.
The production design of the film was hit/miss. The embassy scenes were atrocious, as were the airport scenes. For some reason, Campbell also thought he could pass off downtown Prague as Miami by just putting up some palm trees. WTH. Worst of all, back to the embassy, I haven't seen a faker-looking set in DC's entire era than the one "outside" that embassy when Bond blows up the gas tanks. Just look at the background: painted-on trees and sky that are truly an embarassment.
The Ford Fusion "commercial" shot was bad. The Skyfleet jumbo jet reveal was bad. You mention "close-ups," but far too often Campbell provides unnecessary close-ups of characters that we essentially don't care that much about. Again, we're dealing with the embassy sequence: the close-ups of Mollaka and then the "coughing" embassy guard after the explosion, and don't get me started on the James Bond somersault. All of these are just examples of...amateur filmmaking.
That said...
When the film moves to Montenegro, it's much better, though seeing Bond spin away from a car, during the poisoning scene, is also not great--along with another bizarre closeup of Bond, drugged and looking hapless. I'm not sure there has been a more pathetic shot of Bond in the history of the series:
Campbell directs some brilliant stuff: the pull away from the shower, the torture scene, all of the poker scenes. Brilliant.
But in many places, CR has not aged well at all. Just from a pure directing standpoint, Campbell is out of his league compared to Forster, Mendes, and Fukanaga.
Yeah. Even as a young lad back then I thought the “Miami” people were lacking corn fed meat on their bones.
What a load of bull. Closeups of extras makes the worldbuilding feel larger and less claustrophobic. It’s one of the things I miss from pre 2015 filmmaking. The whole point of the drugging scene was to make Bond seem drugged lol. Campbell did f***** fantastic compared to Mendes and Fukanaga whose films were subpar in every aspect including blocking and cinematography.
Bond films never were and never should be all about Bond, certainly not to the point of making his most iconic nemesis his spiteful stepbrother.
Forster was great.
If you've seen the Controversial Opinions thread then you'll know that it would be the most overrated Bond movie of all time. ;)
For what it's worth there are some odd little moments in CR which are probably due to direction. The bit where Bond and the guy are on top of the crane and throws the gun at Bond. Bond just catches that thing with no effort. It even looks like someone offscreen just casually tossed it at him and possibly sped it up in post. Minor thing though.
Not sure what the first poster is on about though. The camerawork when Bond is drugged is pretty good at evoking that sort of 'woozy' feeling. Never had any problem with the close ups. I even like Mendes and Fukanaga's direction. I'm mixed on Forster.
Anyway, on another note, Boyle gave another variation of the same thing he's been saying for the last 3 years about his Bond 25: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/danny-boyle-james-bond-plot
So I'm guessing we're definitely not going to get a future Danny Boyle Bond film. As I've said before this isn't a bad thing.
Yes, the whole origins thing sounds very strange. At first I thought he meant they were going back to Bond's roots in the sense that the books took place during the Cold War and they'd evoke that FRWL type plot/tone. I mean, we had plenty about Bond's past in the latter half of the Craig era... I'm not sure how much more was needed.
Also, while St. Petersburg and Moscow are great locations, I don't think even in 2018 setting the film there would have been a good idea for political reasons. Now of course it'd be a big no no.
As I've said, Boyle is a great director and I rate him highly, but he's very impressionistic and often his films blur the lines between reality and what characters are imagining. Not really ideal for a Bond film. I've heard weird snippets about this script which may or may not be true (apparently a good chunk of it had Bond in a prison cell). Now on top of that we learn that it definitely included Bond's death and him having a kid, as well as the fact that it went into his origins... even compared to NTTD this seems a bit out there.
Even his picks for Bond are a bit odd. Robert Pattinson and Papa Essiedu... I mean, Pattinson is too famous and would play a very different type of Bond than what we're used to (as he did with his take on Bruce Wayne) and I have seen nothing from Essiedu that strikes me as Bondian... both are very good actors by the way but they are very strange choices.
I think Pattinson has the celebrity required for the role, without seeming too mainstream. He seems very in the mold of Dalton and Craig. He's done some interesting movies, has credibility in the artsy stuff, but he's also a big-name talent in blockbusters like Harry Potter. Not a left-field choice, imo, at least on paper.
My key gripe with both those names, however, is that they come across as boyish to me, a bit in the face and also in their mannerisms and stature. I don't want a Boyish Bond.
Well, Daniel did a fine job of making Bond seem drugged. Martin made it look like the crew had been drugged. It's really quite enough to let the actor act, and not shoot it like a garage band's no-budget music video.
Tim's Bond was also poisoned in TLD, and John "Journeyman" Glen let Tim do his thing, and had a brief POV shot that went fuzzy, just barely revealing a smile on the villain. This is much more effective than Martin's hack work in the CR scene. If anything, @TripAces is being generous!