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
It's also worth asking though: is there always a difference?
There are directors who could be considered auteurs that don't always have a consistent 'vision' as such, at least stylistically. Someone like Martin Scorsese (who yes, does explore similar ideas in many of his films and has arguably even loosely remade some of his own ones) has movies which are very different in his filmography to the point you wouldn't necessarily think that, say, Hugo, The Aviator, or The Age of Innocence is a Scorsese film if you didn't know. I suspect he'd say himself it's a case where how he approaches a film is done so to fit the story. Someone like Howard Hawks was the same. Are these 'craftsman' directors or 'auteurs'?
Similarly it'd be naive to say that Martin Campbell didn't asset his 'vision' onto CR and GE in some way. We know he specifically brought on Paul Haggis to polish off the CR script, and he had the same cinematographer who he'd worked with in the past on both GE and CR.
@DEKE_RIVERS your minimalist posts are getting tiresome.
It adds nothing to the discussion. It’s little more than spam.
It adds a lot. The issue is the solid script.
Now, with that said, both films could be excellent and both could be failures; there is no guaranteed template for success
A director "with a vision" can help to find...well, a new vision.
Oh yeah, agreed. But then again I suppose it'd be the case that any Bond film will come out slightly different dependent on the director. And of course different directors have different ways of working, different temperaments etc. They do have a lot of power over how these films end up. They all bring some kind of 'vision' to the film, and even Nolan would say that his decisions are influenced by how best to tell the story.
Nothing you say adds anything @DEKE_RIVERS , but you know this.
And now you're saying the issue is a solid script, yet a couple weeks ago you said the script isn't important and they're not meant to be read, silly-billy!
Yesterday you were saying Bond isn't important, you waffley-waffley!
Compile everything you say, and it's clear what you are...
I mean sure the vaughns and nolans of the world would be amazing because again i watch popcorn fair
Heck David Ayer’s new film the beekeeper looks quite good
But with Nolan seemingly out of the running i will put one dollar down the director will be some artsy guy i have never heard of that you all know because he directed that one british period peice last year that was the talk of the town
In a perfect world they could easily hire Campbell back. I do think the optics of a 90 year old directing the future of your hot young star is troubling and likely not what they want, to be honest.
I genuinely think they would have asked Fukunaga back if he hadn't messed his career up.
I agree with all of this. Especially your thought that Fukunaga may have been asked back.
I think it was @talos7 who brought up an interview where Cary met with Broccoli to discuss his ideas for Bond (shortly after Spectre, when it wasn't clear if Craig was coming back). Then Craig returned, Boyle was hired and fired, and it seems Broccoli remembered Fukunaga and circled back to him.
Post NTTD, it did seem the producers were genuinely happy with their film...so, yes, I agree with Luck, that Cary would have been considered to launch the new era.
I never said the script isn't important. You don't have to lie.
I believe you did, @DEKE_RIVERS . You said scripts aren't important, and they're not meant to be read-- whatever that means, 😂! What did you mean?
You also stated yesterday that Bond wasn't important either.
In fact, it'd be fun to compile all of your one line posts, and dissect how amazing you are at crafting absolute vagueness, with absolute certainty.
Are you Neal Purvis or Robert Wade? serious question
I am both of them, but none. Serious answer.
I love your confidence @Colonel_Venus , and I’ll take the win! But I’m certainly not playing on their field. And I wouldn’t want that job. No way. Coming up with and developing a huge $200 million 007 adventure? No thanks (although the money would be tempting, I’m just not confident in my execution, 😂). There are a couple writers on this site who’d be much more appropriate.
I have the humility to recognize that uou mean me and thanks
I am kidding of course
Honestly Purvis and Wade arent bad… i would be curious what they would especially as 90’s action movies are in vogue again it would be interesting to see a fun exciting bond film written by them
Yeah, it'll be interesting seeing who they eventually pick for the job in that sense. I do think Bond as a franchise is simply in a better place than it was in '02 though, and much of that is to do with the Craig era as a whole (as much as we criticise it). I can imagine more directors willing to jump at the opportunity this time round.
I don’t think the series was ever really in a bad spot though back in 2002. For as much as we the fans tend to bash Die Another Day, it was still a box office hit, and received pretty decent reviews from critics at the time. I think it was only with the passing of time that DAD (and by extension the rest of Brosnan’s era) got thrown under the bus. But I think an argument could be made that it’s going to be harder to move on this time than it was back in 2002 because of NTTD’s ending. I imagine some audiences will be confused at the thought of Bond dying, then coming back to life, regardless of the change in actor. That’s going to require one brilliant marketing strategy on behalf of EON.
Oh for sure it wasn't a disaster or anything. But I think there was a general sense that the series had drifted a bit too far in the realm of 'self parody'. Craig certainly thought this when he took the role and has even said he wouldn't have done so had they not decided to change direction.
I don't know, I'm not entirely sure general audiences will think too much about that really. A good chunk of casual viewers will have forgotten about NTTD/will want to see the next Bond film, another chunk will understand the concept of a new story/reboot, and amongst those who do question the ending of NTTD I suspect the majority will go along with it once they're told it's a new film. Certainly the director will understand this concept if they're taking the job.
I’d probably pin that down to the Brosnan era being in such close proximity to Austin Powers, which sort of amplified all of the “pastiche” elements of the Bond formula, and in a way kind of hurt the credibility of the series. Even Craig was quoted as saying “Austin Powers f@cked us.”
I don’t know, some General Audiences already try and think of messy ways to form some kind of continuity for the films, resulting in wild theories like Bond being a code name. Having Craig’s Bond die I think will just inevitably add to that confusion. Heck for a while even people on this site were struggling with the concept that the series will just reboot again after Craig-Bond’s Death, and that kind of confirms to me that this is might be a bit of a tricky situation to navigate for EON. That’s just based off what I’ve witnessed over the years however.
I suppose we’ll see. My gut instinct is it won’t matter. This sort of thing hasn’t been an issue with other franchises like Spider-Man and Batman. I’m not sure how much people on this site were struggling with the concept more than they didn’t like it (fair enough). The Bond codename thing I always assumed was s*it some people in the internet liked to spout. I can imagine it coming from an equally smaller section of people this time round.
Yeah, Austin Powers likely had an impact on the perception of Bond, as did the Bourne films. But things like the ropey CGI, the outlandish plots and gadgets etc were there in DAD. There’s a feel of pastiche with TWINE too. As much as those films tried to do something new/different I can see where they were coming from.
I feel different about the Bond series mainly down to the fact that there was somewhat of a backlash to Craig’s era being a reboot when announced, the backlash itself to Craig’s Bond dying (where many online pundits threw their arms in the air proclaiming Bond is dead and therefore so is the series), and the lengths some people will go to try and make a coherent timeline for the Bond series. Do I think ALL audience members are going to have this trouble? No, but to someone who isn’t as immersed in the knowledge of the series/character as much as they are Marvel/DC, having a marketing campaign that heavily emphasizes the fact that it’s a new beginning with a new 007 will help ease that problem I think.