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
That being said, if they go period piece let's start with Moonraker novel!
Similarly, no director is bigger than Bond.
EoN hand they keys over, and they have lost complete control. If another Boyle situation happens, would they fire Nolan? He’d be the literal fox in the henhouse if that is the approach EoN are willing to sign up for.
Exactly.
Faithful MR by Nolan would be a killer. What a movie that would be, depending on who they cast as Bond. But I do trust Nolan in that department.
I'd like that. I would think that he would want to write his own screenplay as much as possible.
He probably already has a few, written with his brother when they were younger.
Whether it is a period piece setting as a one off movie, or a faithful adaptation of unused Fleming meshed into one/two movies for a modern day setting (MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT,TMWTGG), what's not to like with this new rumour.
This is the best news I have heard as a Bond fan in years!!
I agree. Even though I believe it to be a rumour, and only that. The thing is, if they did set it in the past, I think it should be the 50s, in post war Britain, as a one off or two from Nolan.
My preference would be of films set in the present, directed by Nolan of course.
But you are absolutely right. Just to hear something about Bond is wonderful, specially when its this exciting.
If it does turn up to be true, we'll be the two happiest fans in the forums, I tell ya that, my friend.
:-bd
They go on to say that his "next project can be – well – whatever he wants. Would he really tie himself to a franchise at this point in his career? It’s unlikely."
We know for a fact that he is very open to the idea of directing Bond 26 if the conditions are right. It's very difficult to take anyone seriously who is still repeating the line "Would he really tie himself to a franchise at this point in his career?"
It goes both ways though - a director like him could make demands/conditions other lesser known directors wouldn’t, and similarity EON could easily say no to these conditions if they don’t see this approach as the right fit. In that sense no, he doesn’t need to be tied to a franchise, and EON don’t need to be tied to a single director. Often with these choices it’s about who works best with the producers and who can bring the film they want to life, not who the most high profile director is.
I'm taking that with a pinch of salt too, just like I am taking a pinch of salt regarding Nolan is in fact doing 2 Bond films.
I won't believe anything until we get an official announcement from EON.
Nolan should stick to his exposition heavy “important films”….
Exactly. It deserves every award they can throw at it.
I thought it was very peculiar, and almost not really a movie. The first half was edited like a trailer, like almost all of it. One big 90-minute trailer: short scenes composed of short shots, every single line either of apocalyptic importance or some perfectly pithy joke. Entire threads that could have been cut. Again, not really a movie.
The second half had things going on, but on the Downey side, he looked like he was about to tie a woman to train tracks and was hard to take seriously. His being driven by needing to know what Oppy and Einstein talked about seemed like a ludicrous Nolan invention, and when it turns out they were talking about a theme of the movie, it's worse. The Oppenheimer stuff--I don't know, they can make his enemies as unlikeable as they want, but the case for revoking his security clearance seems fairly decent, having seen the first half of the movie--I mean, Teller's testimony is entirely fair.
I don't feel like I learned much about Oppenheimer the man. I found it odd that the one time (I can recall) that he comments on a scientific matter, he's mistaken. It was more Oppenheimer the Project Manager, but even there, I remember him recommending the New Mexico area and dropping marbles, but his work seems otherwise opaque.
As a person with a reasonable amount of interest in things, I don't feel like I heard much new about nuclear arms or the ethical questions around their past or potential use either.
There was a moment late in the film where I laughed out loud. Downey asks "who's the holdout?" and the other guy says something like "a young senator, trying to make a name for himself--name's John F Kennedy." It's hilarious. In The Phantom Menace, Queen Amidala asks for the number of the brave droid that saved them, and Captain Panaka answers, "R2...D2, your highness." It's the same thing, and it's fine in a Star Wars film, but here? And the movie was full of this stuff, that was just the funniest. Like really, really funny.
Anyway, watching it was just one of those things where you feel everybody has gone insane. I'm not saying it's a bad movie (it's not quite bad, and not quite a movie), but it bears no resemblence to most of the conversation that surrounds it.
But I did enjoy it. I will not revisit it, though.
Sometimes I wonder if it really is just about getting good pictures behind great sound for many people to see something "good" there, and that might be alright? But I find your points interesting. And I agree with Univex, I enjoyed my initial sit-through, had plenty to critique myself about its editing and how it shifted focus between characters, but will not be seeing it again likely ever. Now, back to my copy of The Aviator...
Indeed. Back to Lawerence of Arabia, for me, as usual. They just don't do them like that anymore.
I knew Gary Oldman played Truman, but I wasn't prepared for his entrance into the film: a woman opens the door to the Oval Office so the camera can move in. They should have had an announcer: "Ladies and gentlemen, as President Harry S Truman, please give a warm welcome to...Gary...Oldman!"
It was like an old variety show or something.
Very fair review. You nailed so many issues I had with Oppenheimer. But I’ll add, again, women are depicted horribly in his films. They’re paper thin and usually quite horrible in nature. And there’s no indication as to why.
The better film that was nominated, but will lose, is The Killers of The Flower Moon. I’m still reeling from it. And it really is obvious, from a technical/talent perspective, who the better filmmaker is… I’m glad Scorsese has his Oscar, but he was still ripped off with Raging Bull (Ordinary People beat it…. We know which film stands the test of time), and an even more flagrant robbery was Goodfellas losing to Dances With Wolves (once again, one of these films is superior), and now, it appears as if he will lose to Oppenheimer, but, in five, ten, twenty years from now, which film will be standing taller? History suggests another Scorsese film will be (and indeed already is from a story and writing perspective; acting and directing, and art direction….