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
At this point, I don't want a dated Bond movie. Younger and fresher approach, please.
@007HallY: Thanks for your post, your informations are very interesting, did not know that much about this. Very much appreciated!
Yes, P&W have written stuff which can certainly be criticised as pastiche! But it’s worth saying that by Boyle’s own admission the script had some pretty crazy ideas in it.
I always say I think it points to what the producers wanted from Bond 25. It was always going to be a more elaborate, big scale affair. It was always going to be a very ‘different’ type of Bond movie, a lot more apocalyptic/impressionistic than Craig’s previous films with a mix of darkness and humour. It does seem to me Boyle and Hodge went a bit too overboard, but obviously the way they handled the situation is the reason they left. Personally, I think we’re better off with what we got.
No worries, this is only from what I’ve pieced together on these forums. It’s odd that we know all these little details about the script and yet we don’t know more big picture things like what exactly the villain’s scheme was (beyond a giant rocket of some sort, which I suspect the film would have built up to, so perhaps even Bond’s death would have been similar to that of NTTD).
https://imgur.io/a/B8JQn0O Here’s the concept art that was made for it by Tim Browning if you haven’t seen them already. Again, I first saw them through these forums. Very interesting, and not entirely different to the look/feel of NTTD.
Apparently some of it was set in Nambia (which I guess is where the image of the solar panels is meant to be). Bond was set to be retired and living in Spain before being roped into his last mission (not quite sure that makes as much sense as him living in Jamaica though, but sure).
Some people here have said those images/details remind them of MR. I can see that. Does seem odd looking back now. One would have thought Boyle’s film was meant to be a more grounded FRWL style affair.
From my understanding it’s concept art, but I presume from the designs by Tildesley, yes. I don’t know how far they got into making these designs practically speaking (it’d likely be just the interior/studio stuff), but it seems they did begin building them.
Ageism is as distasteful as any other ism, thank you
This film has a 78 year old director and it looks fresh, energetic and exciting. It would be a huge, shallow mistake to not consider a director based on age.
Like I stated, Campbell is a very fit vital veteran director, who gets Bond
There were rumours that for most of the film, Bond would've been held captive by the villain, although I can't find a direct comment on that by Boyle himself.
Mark Tildesley said ‘Danny’s crazy, madcap ideas didn’t quite tie up with what Barbara and Michael had planned’, while Purvis said that after Boyle and Hodge left, ‘we went back to what we’d done. And then we changed things with Cary over several months in the attic at Eon.’ However, Boyle said that the idea of Bond having a daughter was in Hodge's script, although NTTD used it in a ‘different way.’ There were rumours that Boyle and Hodge had Bond eventually being rescued by a female spy - whether she'd've turned out to have been his daughter, I dunno.
Well, while there may be some potential in doing another Bourne, it pales in comparison to Bond. Taking the story above with a grain of salt, if I were offered both there’s no doubt that I’d pick Bond.
Yeah. The truth is, Bond is more colourful than Bourne. No matter how serious a Bond film is, it still comes with a gunbarrel sequence, Bond theme, title song, exotic locations, etc. So these things keep fans interested for the next instalment, as we want to see the new gunbarrel design, the new variation of the Bond theme, the new artist for the title song, etc. I can't say the same about Bourne.
I agree that Bourne pales in comparison to Bond, which is why I personally don’t see any potential in another Bourne film at this rate. If I was offered both I’d certainly pick Bond based off general principle.
Definitely. The issue is Bourne is too constricted to the real world, and also too constricted to that tone/style of that Universe. There really isn’t much variation in Bourne, even the change from Doug Liman to Paul Greengrass didn’t feel super jarring. The only changes there was that Greengrass brought in all the “Bourne-isms” like shaky cam and etc.
The first three Bourne movies were fine for their time. In fact having just rewatched them lately, I think they’re quite good on their own merits. I think they offered what many audience members were looking for at the time, but tastes have changed since then. That style of “gritty” filmmaking I think has ultimately ran its course, even the Craig era ended up abandoning that “gritty realism” that Bourne inspired. The truth is despite how many people propped up the Bourne series, at the end of the day Bond outlived Bourne, just like he outlived all his other contemporaries. It’s the longest running film franchise for a reason.
The problem with a big name director such as Boyle the problem is that they would perhaps want to do something unbondian. That issue does not exist with Chris Nolan. If he were given carte blanche, he would deliver a completely bondian, crowd pleasing movie.
I couldn't agree more.
Seems plausible. Not my first choice, but AQOTWF was well directed. Anyway, this is more along the lines of the sort of director we’ll get as opposed to Nolan I think.
Like I said my gut instinct is it'll be a relatively well established director but not a big name like Nolan or Villeneuve. They will have likely worked on at least one film involving heavier action - Thrillers, War films etc - but their earlier work may well be either smaller scale (any genre) or smaller dramas. If they're not British they will have worked on at least one British or American production. They will have a history of either not writing their own scripts, have directed films that are not from their own scripts, or are used to working in collaboration with other (and each time different) writers.