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
The Joker is to me is only so good because of Ledger. Without him the character falls flat. Silva on the other hand is also a terrific character if you forget about who's playing him. Nolan is good but no way is he the genius the hype makes him.
Where Mendes failed IMO was spending too much time on that old bag M. He should have cut her screen time, or killed her at the start, and then we could have spent more of the movie with Bond trying to locate Silva....that would have made an interesting story. Silva kills M for revenge.....now will Bond kill Silva for revenge (for M) or bring him in?
Anway, regarding Nolan, he does normally bring wonderful characterisations, but I agree that most of his movies are a little dreary (palette wise as well as in terms of the characterisations). I'd like happy Bond once in a while. I'm not averse to him doing one though.
I think he is dying to do a Bond film, hence the comments he made yesterday. Remember, he has previously stated that "The Spy Who Loved Me" was the film he saw as a child that made him want to be a filmmaker. He has also stated that OHMSS is one of his alltime favorite films. We know he spoke to EON before Mendes came back for B24, when they were looking at other directors. He was obviously working on Interstellar at the time and I think I recall him saying something at the time that he and EON talked about timing their schedules in the future so that they can eventually "hook-up."
Without getting into the merits as to whether he should direct one or not, I think the time is perfect for EON to grab him for B25. We are in the age of critically acclaimed Bond films (CR, SF), with oscar nomintions (SF) and A-list actors (Fiennes, Bardem, Finney, etc). If there ever was time to get a big-time, A-list director like Nolan involved in the series, this is the time. This is the kind of thing that I think Mickey and Babs want now. This is why they were willing to wait for Mendes to come back for B24. And who could blame them? It must be exhilarating to know that big names like Mendes and Nolan want to do Bond, after years of B-list directors helming the films.
Even though I think Nolan has a somewhat spotty record ( I personally loved Memento, the Prestige, TDK and Inception -- but I thought that Insomnia wasn't much, and I thought BB and especially TDKR were down right bad) -- it would be interesting to see an actual writer/director at the height of his career take a crack at Bond. I bet EON would be willing to give up some creative control to someone like Nolan. Even if if the results we're not great, Nolan's name attached to a Bond film would guarantee enormous publicity and box office.
Haha. So many filmmakers are guilty of that. The future will laugh at us.
"Some men aren't interested in things like gratitude. They can't be bribed, bullied or coerced. Some men...just want to watch the world live"
I would have preferred this. Never a huge fan of Dench's M. After Silva's big intro I thought we were really about to get a classic face off between Bond and Silva but it all deteriorated after that speech and went v generic.
A good sign or a bad sign?
I think criticising a director for having an ego is a bit like criticising Angela Merkel for having bad hair - these are just givens and do not mean they are not right for the job.
Let him have a go for goodness sake. What's the worst thing that can happen? That it turns out worse than DAD? Worse than QOS? Worse than TWINE? I seriously doubt it. On some level a Nolan Bond movie will be excellent. If he gets it right, then it could just be a classic.
If it's total rubbish (not very likely) then they get someone else in to do the next one.
It's better than the prospect of going back to dodgy fag end of career hacks like during the Brosnan era.
Agreed. As I said in my earlier post -- I think Nolan's record is a little spotty, but we know this: If he ever directed a Bond film, he would attempt to make something epic and great. He might fail, but at least we know going in that he will shoot for the stars. Shouldn't we as fans want that? As opposed to B-list directors checking off boxes and going thru the motions? Nolan might fail, but his effort at the very least will be interesting and if we're lucky it will be brilliant
I actually wrote a little review over here discussing the film:
http://thelektordevice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/interstellar-cosmic-and-intimate.html
1. You can tell it's a Nolan film. It gets into motivations and psyche
2. It's a visual assault on the senses the likes of which I've rarely seen in a theatre. Similar in concept to Gravity (and with the same terribly emotional melodrama) but multiplied by 3. Be prepared to be awed by the visuals, the accompanying soundtrack, & to be somewhat emotionally drained (at least I was) at the end.
3. Regarding the music - Like with TDKR, Hans Zimmer dials up the music and sound effects so high that it drowns out everything else, including speech. I liked the cues in the soundtrack though. It was one of his better efforts and really fit the scenes perfectly, despite the volume. Think 'Slumber Inc.' (track # 17 from Diamonds Are Forever when Bond is trapped in the coffin with all the organs blaring) on steriods combined with Barry's Moonraker score (which it reminded me of a lot in some places) and you've got Zimmer's score.
4. Van Hoytema was outstanding however. Absolutely outstanding.
So I came away awed by the ambition and visual scale of this movie. Nolan went all out. It was similarly grand in vision & conception to Inception, but not as well executed by any means. For those critical of SF's plot holes, Interstellar has holes & editing irregularities as large as the black holes it was referring to in its plot. That is quite forgiveable however, because of the obvious difficulty in telling a story of this complexity and magnitude in less (just) than 3 hours, a problem that did not affect SF's relatively simple revenge plot. It's Transformers for adults, but ultimately is still a popcorn flick. It did not resonate with me like TDK did. It also rips the concept & basic plot from the 1997 movie Contact, including using Matthew McConaughey as the male lead (perhaps as a tribute to that movie).
Most tellingly, my worries resurfaced about two things:
1. whether Nolan is too big for Bond (I'm more inclined now to think that he will in fact do a Christopher Nolan film about James Bond as opposed to a James Bond film by Christopher Nolan). He seems extremely ambitious, and could be quite bored to sit within EON's Bond confines. Moreover, wherever he goes, his fanboys follow ("In Nolan we Trust"), blind to any f'ups. That's not necessarily a good thing.
2. whether Zimmer is too loud (there is increasingly less subtlety in his scoring these days) for Bond. Having said that, I'll take him over Arnold any day if he'll dial back and provide a little more variety (he seems very taken by organs).
----
Both of these two have to show me first that they are not on obsessive, ego-driven quests.....they have to demonstrate that they can scale back before I can be convinced that they could deliver for us. I don't have a problem with their talent.....it's obviously formidable, and all up there on the screen. I'm concerned about the scale of their ambition. If there's one thing that's bigger and more enduring than these two, it's Bond......James Bond.
About that Spielberg argument. I don't see it as really fitting. There was a time (long,long ago) when Spielberg was the most fun director on the planet. That can't be said about Nolan and his navel gazing tendencies.
Young Spielberg would have been perfect for the Roger Moore era. Mature Spielberg would be great for the Craig era. Nolan might not be my number one choice but I don't have an issue with him doing one. The series could do (and has done) a lot worse.
Probably just about every 10 minutes at the start of a new memory cycle.
Bond (Christian Bale) goes to M (Michael Caine) to get his mission, then heads to Q Branch to receive his new gadgets from Q (Morgan Freeman). Bond girls are practically thrown out the window (or blown up), and the villains, SPECTRE (led by Liam Neeson's Blofeld and Tom Hardy's Largo) are initially presented as possible allies, then forgotten about for half the film, then suddenly thrust back in.
Totally agree. I think a final elegiac Craig movie would be perfect for Nolan. Something somber, serious, but ultimately redemptive.
I not suggesting Nolan is perfect, this is the problem he's been hailed as some new Kubrick by some (he's clearly not) he has his shortcomings. Nolanites as they I believed are called have done no end of damage in their behaviour to whenever he is criticised some of their actions are just ridiculous. I know some aren't going to get on board whatever you say but this knee jerk reaction that he'll just deliver a Bond film like his Bat films is a little hasty.
David Yates is another Director some seem to say no to as they judging on his Harry Potter output (personally I liked it) but Yates did a terrific job with State of Play some years ago for the BBC so I can see him being a great choice to helm a Bond film in the future plus unlike Mendes has experience beforehand working in the blockbuster arena.