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
My hope for the future with Bond 27 and beyond is that we see the Bond films get their groove back. The last 4 films have been helmed by dramatists, bond 26 most likely will too, and the series has lost a lot of the flair and brio it had back in the 70's, 80's. There's really only been one version of the bond theme in this era, and it's only ever used as the topper to a scene, not mixed into the score. Think about Bond skiing down the mountain in the TSWLM PTS with the Bond theme swelling in the back ground, will we ever see that again. Even when the Craig films attempt a sequence that should be fun, like Bond riding down the slope in the wingless plane, its played for tension instead of humour. They never feels like they are going the whole hog and celebrating it, like they did back in the day, say with Brosnan remote controlled car in TND. We've had 4, soon to be 5 films in the same style, and I think for a franchise with such a rich, varied legacy, there has to reach a point where the dam breaks, and the creativity and playfulness is able to flow forth. The crater base in SP is an amazing concept, very bondian, but with a dramatist like Sam mendes at the helm we never see it used to any kind of potential, and Bond and Blofelds dialogue "why did you come?" "I came here to kill you" "and I thought you came here to die" Where's the witty interplay Bond had with Goldfinger, Largo, Khan, even Elliot Carver?" Where's the passion, invention, flair? Everything seems so slow, and drawn out, as though dramatists like Mendes, Fukunaga are more certained with milking every scene for their portent, instead of mining their comedic or energetic potential. Think about how snappily the PTS to LALD is, where we zip around the world in about 3 or 4 minutes. Will we ever see that kind of dynamic, kinetic style from a dramatist? The series is championed for its ability to adapt, and I think they need to rediscover some of that charm and flair, because we reach a point where failing to embrace that is exactly what's holding EON back.
Villeneuve or Nolan, 2026 works for you yada yada yada, Bond 26.
And *who* is he writing this for?
It's a word-salad-monologue. The same snippets repeated over and over until it's just blocks of words.
It's not sharing thoughts and ideas.
Is a pseudo-lecture. It's pontificating.
And, in the end, it's just rather empty.
Austin Powers was released in 1997 and by 2002 EON felt that the audience had become wise to the tropes and there was a certain irony you couldn't escape from. The films could no longer wink along with the audience, bond had to become "real". What I'm saying is that eventually this taboo needs to be broken, because it's holding the films back, and they have started to feel too much of a similar pedigree, and don't take advantage of the full range of the bond ouvere anymore. Even when Craigs films loosen up, they don't play up the silliness, and most often emphasis the tension of a scene no matter how absurd it is. The Paloma sequence was a refreshing departure because fully exploited and played up the comedic quality of the scene which is why I think they should use that as the template for the next film.
These are my thoughts, I am sharing my ideas, you might not agree with them, but it's not a word-salad - my argument is clear and concise.
I certainly know how to agree and disagree appropriately, @Mendes4Lyfe
But as Benny pointed out, you just repeat the same things over and over that, yes, your posts have become blocks of words, with no meaning. A word-salad-monologue.
You repeat the same points over and over, like a religious sermon.
By repeating the same points, you’re no longer reinforcing. You’re lecturing.
James Mangold doesn't always knock it out of the park (I was lukewarm on Dial of Destiny), but I think he really knows what he's doing and would be a good choice for Bond. It does worry me that Jez Butterworth, the writer who did such a great job on Le Mans '66 also gave us the deeply disappointing Spectre, but I guess there are no sure things when it comes to movies.
Do people here think he might be too expensive for Bond, or perhaps just a bad fit?
Hmm… I like Mangold. He’s a high IQ filmmaker in that he knows Story inside out, translates that easily from the page to visual storytelling, has style and gets great performances out of his leads… I’ve never thought of him as a Bond director…. And I don’t know if he’s a fit. But he’s certainly of a pedigree where I’d certainly sit down with him, if I was a part of the EoN crew, and see what his ideas were.
I think that’s an interesting “candidate” @sandbagger1
+1. Nothing new to see here.
EON can do better.
So I guess Spielberg should have never directed after 1941.
Why aren’t you looking at his complete filmography @DEKE_RIVERS ??? As Talos mentioned, all directors have films you may not like.
Kinda ridiculous that you didn’t like Indy Jones so that would eliminate this director from taking a stab at Bond (thankfully you have no say, so… 😂)…
You’re not saying anything with that comment.
A film producer won’t look at Mangold and think: you’re the reason why the last Indy Jones film bombed! They look at the person’s body of work, they listen to their pitch.
If things worked the way @DEKE_RIVERS imagined them, then Ridley Scott would have been in the director’s dog house starting in 1982.
Christopher Nolan - 7.5/10
Denis Villeneuve - 7.5/10
James Mangold - 7/10
Edgar Wright - 9.5/10
Martin Campbell 8.5/10
Alfonso Cuaron 8.5/10
Guy Ritchie 1/10
Sam Mendes 1/10
Brad Bird 8/10
Mark Mylodd 7/10
David Leitch 7/10
Timing matters, he is another "too late" director. We need a modern approach after Craig IMO.
We are not in 2010.
Wait, hold on, we're not in 2010?? 🤔 Thanks for letting me know.
And no one is saying Mangold SHOULD be a Bond director, @DEKE_RIVERS .
No one.
@sandbagger1 floated some good, throughtful questions.
I responded, and, if you have a basic understanding of reading comprehension, you would have then understood that I replied with, I don't know if Mangold is a fit, but he'd be worth listening to since he's a great filmmaker-- whether it's 2010, or 2024.... Mangold may not be respected in the great Deke Rivers's eyes, but he IS respected in the film industry.
You should read posts three times before responding.
Sigh.... Read... Posts... Three.... Times.... Before... Responding...
Or better yet, Deke, what do you get out of your posts? Most of the time you're saying nothing. So what is your ultimate goal?
These little phrases you use shut-down any type of dialogue-- because they usually have little meaning to them. So maybe that makes you feel intelligent? Superior? ( 😂)
Or;
Do you want to have a conversation? If you do, then it'd be nice if you then expanded on your thoughts...
Or maybe it's just trolling.
Shrugs, keep doing you, Deke.
It's too late.
You didn't answer one of my questions. I'm not talking about Mangold. I am asking what you hope to achieve by your posts? What's the goal?
And, as for Mangold, I've explained: sandbagger posed a couple of interesting questions.
I responded.
I don't know if he's a fit, but he's a worthy candidate to speak to because he's an incredible filmmaker.
Why is it "too late" to, in this hypothetical circumstance, chat with a consummate filmmaker, like Mangold? Why is it too late Deke?
I just watched Ripley, and the guy who wrote, or co-wrote every episode, directed all of the episodes, created the concept as a series, is a 71 year old, who made some of the best viewing I've seen all year.
So why is it too late to chat with a Mangold?
Do you have a goal?
Yes, my goal was to engage you in a conversation. I asked why it's too late.
Replying with, "it's my opinion", isn't really sharing ideas or having a conversation.
So I'm left to suppose that you, indeed, are trolling to a degree.
Keep doing you, Deke.
Why now? Is he cheaper?
What the hell is a modern approach, Deke? What do you mean?
Mangold makes great films.
What is a modern approach? Is it John Wick-style? Is it talent from series TV like Succession or Ripley??
Useeeee your wordsssssss
Christopher Nolan - 5/5
Denis Villeneuve - 4/5
James Mangold - 3/5
Edgar Wright - 2/5
Martin Campbell - 3/5
Alfonso Cuaron - 4/5
Guy Ritchie - 1/5
Sam Mendes - 4/5
Brad Bird - 3/5
Mark Mylodd - 1/5
David Leitch - 1/5
I don't want another Craig movie without Craig, I don't want a Brosnan movie without Brosnan either.
I don't want another Indiana Jones 5 (red flag) or another old school director making a dated movie.
Ok, so you don’t know what you want, so long as it’s “new and fresh”…
So, considering you don’t know what you want, how would you know Mangold couldn’t direct Bond? And why is his work on DOD a red flag??????
Jazeus, I’ve never pulled teeth before, but…
Let’s say Mangold was chosen to direct Bond 26. Do you honestly believe he’d make DoD Part 2, this time starring James Bond? Do you honestly believe that?
And why couldn’t Mangold make a fresh new take on Bond? Remember Deke, the producers will have a vision on how to create a fresh new era. Their script will represent these new changes. And then the director will finish off this and execute according to what the producers are asking for.
It’s not solely up to the director to come up with the tone of the new era. By the time they’re hired, there will already be an idea of what direction they’re going in.
I don't hate Indiana Jones 5 but he didn't deliver He had one job, being a yes man and he didn't deliver.
How about a yes woman? ;)
You do realize @DEKE_RIVERS , that it will be the producers who dictate the new direction since it’s their IP. That’s their job. But that doesn’t make the person a “yes man”…
But you have so far evaded all of my questions:
What do you want to achieve with cryptic posts?
What is a modern approach? Is it from a John Wick-type director? Or tv creators like Succession or Ripley?
Do you think Mangold would make DoD Part 2 just starring Bond?
Why is Mangold’s work on DoD a red flag?
Why couldn’t Mangold make a fresh Bond film, according to you?
These are just *some* of the questions I’ve asked you, and you’ve evaded, which leads me back to my original question: what is your ultimate goal of your posts?
EDIT: saw your edit: how was Mangold a yes man?
And what was his “one job” on DoD @DEKE_RIVERS