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
Anyway, this early casting process is encouraging, if only for the current film and how on top of things people involved appear to be.
I'm happy. Now, just don't overuse the great, minor, MI6 characters. :)
Over the last few years, Volvo have actually gotten their styling up to scratch. Not the same old boring box-mobiles they used to manufacture.
Why? I think it's very clear they can produce much better movies with three year (or longer) gaps between them. Even if that wasn't the case, shorter gaps would still diminish the franchise. Hype is much more powerful if Bond films are released less frequently.
I still don't understand the whole "if the films are released in shorter gaps, the quality will be lesser" argument. When has that happened recently to prove it? DAD had a three year gap, and look how that turned out, and although I love QoS, I know I'm in the minority with that, but one of the reasons QoS turned out the way it did (for those who hated it) was due to the writer's strike, I would say.
When the franchise first started and was in its prime, the films were getting released in even shorter gaps, and those are still rated as some of the best Bond films. Granted, they were based off the novels, it was the 60's, it was Sean Connery, etc., but I really don't think the quality is going to be worse if they release them every two years than if they did every three or four.
Now, if it got to the point where it's the same old rehashed junk and they release a film every November, then it's a problem. A lot of work goes into the movies, but it's not something they absolutely need at least three or more years for. Two years seems ample enough to me to churn out one hell of a Bond adventure.
They are also very reliable cars.
http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/cannes-chiwetel-ejiofor-gwyneth-paltrow-star-in-the-secret-in-their-eyes-billy-ray-directing-remake-for-bustling-im-global
In think it would be OK, as the bulk of his scenes could be shot later, near the end of the shoot, early next year.
Ida Engvoll
Disa Östrand
Synnøve Macody Lund
Birgitte Hjort Sørensen
Ingrid Bolsø Berdal
1. If there was only a two year gap between TWINE and DAD then Die Another Day would have been even worse.
2. They could never produce Bond movies every year nowadays like they did in the 60s. Not because the new movies are not based on novels but because big budget filmmaking is a much longer process nowadays.
3. As I wrote, even if two years were long enough to make great Bond movies consistently, people would get tired of them. There was much less hype before QOS than before DAD, CR or SF.
He can say no for a number of reasons, among them a conflicting schedule. Mikkelsen was not the first choice to play Le Chiffre, if I am not mistaken.
1.) I'm just pointing out that longer gaps do not equal better films. There's no guarantee of that.
2.) Agreed, that's what I was trying to get at.
3.) Who says people would get tired of them? A lot of films that are done once a year manage to still rake in money, even though franchises like those merely milk the teet of the series. One film every other year doesn't necessarily mean people will tire of them too fast.
Have to disagree with you there. Classier maybe, and probably a much better actress, but I think Denise Richards was (at the time of TWINE, she looks awful now) much more attractive than this girl.
Bad example as they didn't work on that film for 36 years.
Those games and films probably would have been even worse without the delay. I understand that some Bond fans want to see a new Bond movie as often as posssible. I used to think the same way but than I realised that too much of something you love is not a good thing. Just like eating too much chocolate.
Sometimes, I highly doubt that, given the laughable quality they're shipped in. It's just one example, but 'Duke Nukem Forever' took years and numerous delays before it was released, and look how that turned out. You can't get much worse than that. A delay can always help, but there's no way of saying for absolute fact that if ___ is delayed, it WILL be better.
This. I've seen plenty of really good sequels that came out after two years (The Raid 2 being a recent example) and I've seen shit sequels after a longer gap between films (Die Hard 5 being a recent example).
Maybe it's because I got it for a fiver but I quite liked that. I thought it was fun.
Haha, how about the Star Wars prequels then? Those ideas had been brewing since the 70s, and Lucas started working on them early in the 90s for real.
Class is also part of the attraction, hence why I never found Denise Richards attractive. Not as Bond girl material anyway.
The graphics were crap and a lot of the gags were outdated but I thought running around shooting aliens while Duke cracked one liners was fun.
I think a good example of time not meaning quality, video game wise, is the last Aliens game. Christ that was awful. "The true sequel to James Camerons Aliens" arrogant twats, it was a thousand times worse than Alien 3 and 4. I felt really ripped off when I played that, mainly because they'd lied and shown fake footage in the adverts.
The longer gap is only useful when they use it. For example if there is a 5 year gap between two films but they start working on the second film only 2 years before the release date, that is the same scenario as a two year gap.
All I am saying is that in most cases the longer they actually work on a film the better it will be. And no, I am not saying a movie they worked on for 6 years is usually better than a movie they worked on for 2 years. I am saying that a movie with a short production time would be better compared to itself if they worked on it for a longer time.