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
Le Mans '66 didn't do so well. Just OK.
Logan, yes, but It's like Hobb and Shaw, a popular franchise.
I don't see Mangold having international appeal. At least nothing special.
Anyway, after Indiana Jones 5 I think it's is a bad idea. The timing is wrong.
So who do you want
I feel like if it was about 20 minutes shorter, I'd have held it in higher esteem. I got a bit bored (and irritated) by the end. Agree about ATJ, though: it's no coincidence that it was around the time his character checked out that I lost all interest.
“Franky — and I cannot believe I would say that — but the answer would be a massive yes. I would deeply love to one day make a James Bond movie,” Villeneuve said. “It’s a character that I’ve been with — like everybody — since my childhood. I have massive affection for Bond. It would be a big challenge for people to try and reboot it after what Daniel did. What Daniel Craig brought to Bond was so unique and strong and probably unmatchable. He’s the ultimate James Bond. I can’t wait to see Cary’s movie. I’m very excited. I’m one of the biggest Bond fans.
A few years ago, Villeneuve came very close in directing Daniel Craig's last film as Bond, “No Time to Die,” and it had been reported, by Deadline’s Baz Bamigboye, that Craig actively pursued him. However Villeneuve turned it down as he got the “Dune” offer, which was his dream film since childhood. Cary Fukunaga ended up getting the “Not Time to Die” gig instead.
Villeneuve recently confirmed that he has “four projects on the table.” We already know about “Dune: Messiah,” “Rendezvous with Rama” and “Cleopatra,” which is being written by “1917” scribe Krysty Wilson-Cairns. What’s the fourth one? He said that it was a “time sensitive” mystery project. “
So that was last week.
I’ve been saying I think he is the leading candidate since mid-Feb, based off of similar “buzz”. I’ve also said, it could be scheduling that takes him out of the equation— again.
My opinion on this hasn’t still changed and I personally haven’t heard anything to change my mind on this.
The writer from THR doesn’t exactly know what this next project is either, so they’re guessing as much as we are as well. He may know more, but until I hear something further, I still think Villeneuve is the number one choice to direct the next Bond film.
And no, @Mendes4Lyfe this isn’t because I want him to direct as you’ve already tried to imply. The only name that I’ve ever mentioned, I think, and he is someone I’d like to see direct a 007 film is Mark Mylod (and that was like a year or more ago!).
Instead, I’m saying this about Villeneuve because the industry has been connecting him to the new Bond film for quite a while now (before many of these latest rumours started), and it makes sense to me when I’ve heard their arguments, and , providing that schedules align, I think this will become a reality, 🤷♂️…
@Mendes4Lyfe that’s what I’ve said since mid Feb, so I hope your trolling (oops), will end now, 😂. I’ve got you coming at me re: Villeneuve (trying to prove me wrong, but all I’m doing is speculating based on what I’ve heard, silly), and;
I’ve got @DEKE_RIVERS on the other side claiming I like Mangold as a Bond director— which is also something I NEVER said, 😂.
Maybe you fellas can knock heads together and invent other things I didn’t say either, 😂.
Whether Villeneuve or Mangold or Wright or Campbell or whomever eventually gets the role, I could care less. I know whomever is chosen will, at the very least, make a film that will be entertaining; it’ll be successful and the world will continue spinning. You two put too much weight into being “right”, 😂.
Saying that, my opinion as who is the number one candidate still hasn’t changed, 🤷♂️…
So, I hope you two can find amusement elsewhere?
I was blown away by Le Mans '66 but underwhelmed by Dial of Destiny; if Mangold could deliver a film that worked as well as the former I'd be very happy. To be honest it really surprises me that a great iconic hero like Indiana Jones only has two films that are considered knock-outs by the general public, even with Steven Spielberg involved. It's not easy to keep a franchise going, even with a great character and a top creative team.
I still agree that Mangold has a pedigree that just chatting with him would likely be valuable to EoN. There’s nothing to lose in having a meeting with a director who is as versatile as he is, right? I mean in a three or four year period he made two Wolverine films that were so vastly different they could’ve been directed by separate people.
It was a good shout out 👍🏻 ! And it’s not a name that is one of the usual candidates that we all rotate here .
Thanks again for speaking out. I appreciate the kind gesture!
*Source: https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/james-bond-producer-007-casting-000129-20230219
@Kojak007 , I think a lot has to align if this is true about Villeneuve. Dropping out due to schedules is a very real thing.
There must be a top five or top ten candidates list floating around EoN.
I wouldn’t worry about this until some of the smoke clears on all of this, because the only absolute to this new era is this: things are murky at best (and that’s including behind the scenes at Amazon. I think there is some creative upheaval there). And only those behind the doors at EoN HQ’s knows the absolute path they’re taking.
All we are doing is taking what we’ve heard.
I’m taking bits and pieces of speculation from a friend of mine who is related to the EoN family, my agent, and a few other “industry “ people, along with quotes Villeneuve himself has stated, and I’m combining all of it to the fact he DID meet with EoN to do Craig’s last.
Taking all of what I’ve put together, it’s my feeling he is back in the lead candidate’s chair, but by no means do I think it’s set in stone.
If schedules do align? I’ll be far more bullish about this, 😂.
But for now, there are too many questions, and the EoN people are poker faces at the moment.
Some other directors I think would be more likely:
Nicolas Winding Refn
James Mangold
Joseph Kosinski
Rian Johnson
Doug Liman
All a bit safe imo. Do they want to go bold? What about these?
Yorgos Lanthimos
Jane Campion
Olivier Assayas
Lynne Ramsay
Steve McQueen
Damien Chazelle
To clarify, I'm not completely against Villeneuve as a director of a Bond movie, but I don't like the idea of him directing the next film. Bond 26 starts a new era and most likely will set the tone of this era. And with Villeneuves directing style in mind, I'm not sure this is the direction I would like to see.
From time to time I enjoy darker and more "grounded" Bond movies (like LTK and CR), but I don't think I want to see that with the next movie. Maybe a well balanced movie in the vein of TLD could be a good starting point.
But that's just my opinion, of course. People seem to like the more serious tone of the Craig era, so I'm obviously in the minority here.
As daunting as it is to follow Craig (we're in 1968 again), the opportunity to choose a new Bond *and* set the tone for Bond 26 forward will be quite an inducement for the eventual director.
It looks more like 2004.
Agreed.
That’s not the vibe I get nowadays. A series like Bourne isn’t eclipsing Bond (not even MI, the last one of which seriously underperformed when put against Oppenheimer and Barbie, and never outperformed Bond anyway). Franchises like Batman have gone in even darker directions than what they did previously. Films like Top Gun Maverick I don’t think will have any relevancy to the direction of Bond, and that film’s two years behind us now anyway. Same I think will be true of DC’s new releases, and of course Marvel’s very hit or miss nowadays to put it kindly. For younger people Bond is a franchise with a long history behind it. Many enjoyed the Craig films and even if they’re not big fans will go and see the new film regardless.
Going back to Batman, I think the closest equivalent to where Bond currently is is actually that franchise going from Nolan’s trilogy to Reeve’s efforts. The former was a popular trilogy (although people certainly had their complaints about the last one) and it consciously started with the premise of ‘grounding’ Batman’s world even if the more outlandish elements of the character were reintroduced over time. With The Batman they seemingly made an effort to re adapt the character/world (ie. A more impressionistic Gotham, a younger more conflicted Wayne) while broadly keeping other fundamental traits from the previous era. Obviously the specifics of this will be relevant to Bond and impossible to predict currently, but that’s where we’re at I think, and broadly (emphasis on that last word) where we’ll go from there.
And, yes, @echo , it would have to be awfully tempting for Villeneuve to consider being the director to kick-start the new era.
I’ve enjoyed their work recently, especially a couple of unproduced scripts I’ve read from Ms.Joy. And they did superb work on earlier seasons of Westworld.
And Fallout has really taken me by surprise: Nolan and Joy are executive producers, overseeing, with their show runner, beautifully executed scripts full of wonderful dark comedy, terrific action, very deep and layered character work, and Nolan the Younger directed three impressive episodes.
If I was EoN I’d definitely be keeping an eye on these two for their writing, and perhaps give J.Nolan a longer look as a potential director down the road for James Bond.
These two have only got better as creators and writers, but now Nolan is flexing more creative muscles with directing.
Just a thought as I finished the first season last night and was deeply impressed with the talent of the entire team…., and the money is on the screen.
You know, I was actually thinking the same thing. I'm coming up to episode 6 of Fallout, and so far it's holding together very well. As I said the other day when I was complaining about Citadel, Fallout actually seems to know where to put its money.
Absolutely. The money was spent wisely. The CG is seamless, the actors are all executing their characters wonderfully, and I didn’t see any weak links to the series.
It’s outstanding.
Enjoy the last couple of episodes, @sandbagger1 !!
I just saw this post.
On a bio drama, Le Mans ‘66 had a $97 million dollar budget.
It made $225,508,210 ($107 million plus was made at the international markets).
For this genre, that wasn’t “okay” business. It was very strong business, 😂!
A bio pic about car racing, and it did huge business.
I’m not sure what Deke’s threshold is, @sandbagger1 , but this film was greeted with exceptional business. Taking into account the genre, and specific genre, it was huge business.
As far as not having international appeal?
The Wolverine:
DOMESTIC (32%)
$132,556,852
INTERNATIONAL (68%)
$282,271,394
WORLDWIDE
$414,828,246
Logan:
DOMESTIC (36.5%)
$226,277,068
INTERNATIONAL (63.5%)
$392,902,882
WORLDWIDE
$619,180,476
Taking these three films as a small sample size, Mangold’s films definitely have legs overseas. Again, I’m not sure what @DEKE_RIVERS threshold is. But he’s very wrong in his statements as the actual numbers are showing.
Let’s take a look at his misfire, Dial of Destiny:
$174,480,468
INTERNATIONAL (54.6%)
$209,482,589
WORLDWIDE
$383,963,057
Every director has misfires, and although I like DoD, it didn’t hit with audiences during a tumultuous time at the cinema (and cinema still hasn’t fully recovered from Covid and strikes).
But it’s clear that Mangold has both domestic and international appeal. He has a varied resume. It is a good call (although i still don’t know if he’s truly a fit for Bond).
But the box office info Deke gave you was more his opinion, and not based on the numbe. Nor does he consider the genre of Le Mans…. I loved F vs F as well, by the way. And its numbers were amazing for a bio pic, and elite for a bio pic about fast cars!
🤷♂️
You can look at this film, and others, in more detail at:
Boxofficemojo.com
It was ok.
Yeah, it was a drama about cars, but it wasn't a cheap movie.
Anyway, by today's standards it's a great number, but it was a 2019 movie.
The budget was under $100 million.
The driving stunts were done in camera.
The two stars that sell the picture got what they deserved.
It’s a period piece (that always have higher costs, 😂).
The budget was bang on; nab two stars of that caliber and the money was all on the screen. There’s nothing cheap about making a film like this, including recreating the period cars and costumes and sets.
You may’ve thought the film was ok. Thats your opinion and I’m not arguing it.
Everything else you say about the budget and the box office, is just in error. You seemingly aren’t aware of budgets for different genres, nor the box office of bio pics, nor box office for race car driving pics, nor budgets or their expected grosses of period films. Period bio films.
And Mangold’s films have international legs. For this one picture, Deke, this film made 52% domestic vs 47% foreign.
But look at his three latest action films…. And that’s where Bond resides. He’s got international/adult appeal. Trade the name Wolverine and put a James Bond title above James Mangold and, guess what? Even bigger international numbers.
So…. Thanks for the discussion man. Moving on.
The movie was expensive. Period. It was not an indie drama. You can almost make a Bond movie with 97 million ;)
Deke, I know you hafta always be right, but…
$97 million for a period drama/bio-pic starring two of the biggest stars in Hollywood IS a conservative budget.
Man, if you can’t understand me, then stop replying to me.But here is my last attempt to get thru to you:
A Beautiful Mind
Period/drama
2001
$60 million budget, today would be $105 million
The King
Period/drama
2019
$90 million
Ferrari
Period/drama
2023
$95 million
The Hurricane
Period/drama
1999
$50 million then would be $93 million today.
So Deke, it’s not indie filmmaking we are talking about.
We are talking films, with stars, in period films and a $97 million budget is conservative and on par. There are outliers, but period pieces are very often shut down because of the costs of these films!!! I’m familiar with this as I had to turn a feature on Al Capone into a series due to the cost factor of a feature vs a series where the money can be stretched (my agent has now submitted this project to streamers).
So there are some things ppl may actually know more about than you, and you opinions.
Have a nice evening!
It was expensive. If they don't make more dramas like this... Well, you know the reason.
Oh brother. No one was talking about indie films, only you @DEKE_RIVERS .
For a studio picture, $97 million isn’t expensive. It’s on par to bringing the reality of the era to the screen. And they expect a profit.
They will never stop making these period dramas (especially during Oscar season),but THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CHALLENGING to get made. And a filmmaker, like the one we have been discussing, is given the faith to deliver.
Small fry people like myself are not. So we go to the streamers to pitch. Boo-hoo for me.
But, we are off course here.
For a Hollywood pic, $97 million is a very tight budget, especially as it ended up on screen, it not only has one, but TWO mega-stars.
Mangold makes bank, and that’s why he’s respected.
He has international legs, and especially his action-thrillers show this, clearly.
As I said, I don’t know if he is right for Bond, but if I was a producer for EoN and someone suggested Mangold, that’d give me pause. And in this imaginary universe, I’d certainly have a meeting and ask: what would you do with James Bond in this new era?
And then I’d listen, and I’d learn….