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
Wrong and confusing dates for the release of the movie were announced months ahead through official channels (23 Oct or 6 Nov, never 26 Oct anywhere), and now they change everything less than 3 months before : Think about those fans from far away who bought plane tickets and hotel nights well in advance to have cheap prices...
We know that after 3 months explaining us that "a worldwide simultaneous release is pure genius from Sony to avoid piracy", you'll now explain us that "to release SPECTRE two weeks in advance in the UK is pure genius from Sony to build momentum for the US release" or some stuff like that. But please don't forget that you live with pink glasses.
In other part of the world, some fans are quite sad they have spent money for nothing, and that they'll have to cancel the cheap plans for less affordable ones, and I think one should feel they have some right to feel so. No need to insult them.
Anyone who loves cricket will love this interview, but more importantly for us, Sam discusses 'Spectre' from about the 23 minute mark onwards. He spoke mostly about the process of making the film, which was very interesting, and he did reveal two details about the music which I think are new:
- The title song has been recorded
Fingers crossed indeed. I would be very disappointed if it didn't turn out the case.
According to this, Newman followed the crew on the set in Mexico and wrote the music for the PTS whereas it was filmed, so perhaps he wrote most of the music during the filming.
If I recall correctly, Forster told Arnold to do the same by composing the music based on the script rather then the movie itself.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/sam-mendes-rules-out-directing-6094189#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Uh-huh! Time for Babs to get the check book out? :D
Mendes probably has a rough cut already and has ear-marked the sequences which wont have any music, hence the 100 min mark. That could also include licenced music on the film.
Good interview. Glad to hear him talk enthusiastically about it.
We've heard that one before...
Hopefully EON learnt from their mistakes and will keep Marc Forster and Lee Tamahori away from this franchise.
Depending on the success of "The Man From UNCLE", I could see Guy Ritchie as a serious candidate to direct Daniel Craig's last, and slightly funnier Bond films :-). Christopher Nolan should still be in the running as well. Matthew Vaughn perhaps?
No thanks. Don't want Ritchie anywhere near a Bond film and I don't believe Barbara and Michael would either.
They're not going to hire anyone who makes obvious Bond knock-offs. Assuming Mendes really, really means it this time, they're going to look for someone of that caliber. If Tom Hooper is interested...
Just for the sake of his name....he shouldn't be hired? I'm curious what kind of arguments you have against Guy.
I can't speak for @RC7, but I don't know if he'd really get the tone right. His "signature" style of film making isn't well suited to Bond, and while UNCLE may turn out to be a fun spy flick, it comes across as a little too flippant and jovial for Bond. It's one thing to be able to do a Bond parody or a caricature of a spy film, but to do a proper Bond film, and take it seriously is an entirely different thing.
Those same worries we had about Sam Mendes. I heard on many occassions, especially from die-hard fans, that Mendes was perhaps too much of a drama director, who could throw away the fun of it. Even now there are people who are still criticising Sam Mendes for his take on the franchise.
Same with Martin Campbell. Look to his non-Bond films, like "The Green Lantern" and "The Mask Of Zorro". Perhaps we could ask Cambell back?
Quite. I'm not basing this on his 'name' @Gustav_Graves, but his canon of work. He's style over substance and makes what I would class as, at best, mildly entertaining films. His old producer Matthew Vaughn has proven to be a more adept, diverse and idiosyncratic director than Ritchie will ever be. Layer Cake, Stardust, X-Men: First Class, Kick Ass... vs. Lock Stock, Snatch, Revolver, RocknRolla, Sherlock Holmes... there is just no comparison. There are many, many, many directors I'd prefer to tackle Bond before Ritchie.
1. Michael G. Wilson won't be one of the producers of Bond 25, although he will probably get an "executive producer" credit or something similar. Gregg Wilson will get a promotion, and will produce the movie together with Barbara Broccoli.
2. Craig won't return.
3. The first movie of the new era will be directed AND written by Christopher Nolan. (Which means Bond 25 will be the first Bond film ever to be written and directed by the same person.)
Well, the producers changing Craig's contract from at least five movies to "open ended" is pretty worrying.
I think a Villeneuve Bond film would be great, but I would a Fukunaga Bond film would be even better.
They won't choose Guy Ritchie.
I'm not advocating Hooper, but he is the kind of British director with an Oscar pedigree that I can see being discussed at EON. And what do you know, a quick search for 'Tom Hooper Bond' shows he is not uninterested...
http://collider.com/tom-hooper-les-miserables-james-bond-interview/
As for Ritchie, he's more a Brosnan era director. And I feel like potential actors, anyone who has directed an obvious Bond-like film is not going to be considered. You have to assume his name would have been thrown about during the TWINE/DAD era (funny how his then wife did the theme song and a cameo, hmm...)