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
Yes, Witt again please. In CR and Skyfall there isn't one moment where you can't tell what is going on.
Does this matter? SF had the Hobbit to contend with and saw it off wih no problem. Is Christopher Nolans name alone really enough to guarantee a hit?
I dont see any problem with a mid October release again which would give Bond 24 three or four weeks to make most of its money.
Bond would destroy Interstellar at the bo.
Bond is a tested brand and Bond 24 will be coming of the back of SF, the most successful and universally accepted Bond movie of all time, even if the next film isn't a patch on SF as long as it's half decent (a la QOS) it will be a global hit. Nolan is a proven commodity in fanboy circles, but interstellar has no built in audience except those guys, and that's not enough to make a hit. The reason TDK films and Inception made money was the great reviews and word of mouth that made them juggarnaughts, if Instellar is anything less than excellent and get the good word out it won't be that big a challenge to the next Bond at the bo.
Judging by Craig's last three films, I don't see how this is news to anyone.
The article: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/09/screenwriter-john-logan-gives-a-bond-24-update
and the MI6 thread for in depth discussion (if it's really necessary): http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/5984/bond-24-to-explore-bonds-human-side#Item_6
Pray tell by what source you are coming by this information?
Or are you just quoting from the bollocks William Hill article we've all seen already which is plainly just someone at William Hill being asked by a journalist for contenders and giving a list of half a dozen off the top of his head.
Spielberg, Scorsese and Eastwood for christs sake. I ask you.
This is very, very, very, very, very, very good news!!!
First of all. I get my information from the 007 Dossier website & their accurate with Bond information. I'm not quoting anybody. So just calm down. No need to get snippy Like you always do on threads towards people. What William Hill said is different than what I said.
No what you said is exactly the same as what William Hill said. They have Ritchie installed as favourite and you state quite unambiguously that 'Ritchie is on the top of the list'. I'm just curious to know where you get your 'facts' from.
Because if your source is also telling you that Spielberg and Bigelow are on that list I suggest you find a new Deepthroat because theres no way thats happening.
No! 'm not qouting William Hill. I didn't read his interview. The source is correct. What's the website going to do? Lie about this information. The website said the Bond producers are considering it? They never said it was confirmed. But it might not happen because he is working on Sherlock Holmes 3.
You said 'Ritchie is on top of the list'. Thats a statement of fact.
You should have modified it with something like 'Ritchie is thought to be on top of the list' or 'Ritchie is reportedly on top of the list' if its only rumours - hence my confusion.
I see now that its probably just the same William Hill story recycled.
They must be somewhere on this list....EON should release five directors names every week on youtube....
4/1 Guy Ritchie, 6/1 Martin Campbell, 9/1 Martin Scorsese, 10/1 Steven Spielberg, 20/1 Ang Lee, 25/1 Ridley Scott, 25/1 James Cameron, 33/1 Clint Eastwood, 33/1 Quentin Tarantino, 50/1 Tim Burton.
William Hill has stopped this betting now, though. For those who're in need to have some news, there's a slight possibility it means "someone in the know" (or at least that's what William Hill thinks) had started putting too much money on one of these names :)
Really? I can only see Ritchie and Campbell as being realistic shots at this (and perhaps Ang Lee if Babs has never seen the Hulk) and I would rate both of them at over 10/1. Just cant see it happening. I dont partcularly dislike Ritchie but I thought we were shopping in Waitrose these days not Morrisons?
I don't think anyone was serious about Ken Loach and Danny Boyle I think ruled himself out saying he wouldn't want another big budget film to deal with after his experience with The Beach. As for Richie I can't see it personally I'm not a fan and I think he's not subtle enough and has a distinctive style he'd need to keep in check and I don''t think he's talented enough to keep on the leash, too much slo mo action sequences in the Holmes films for my liking.
I'm thinking Tom Hooper, Joe Wright or maybe even Branagh, I think Babs and Mike will definitely be looking for Oscar calibre for Bond 24, no 21st century John Glen equivalents like Stuart Baird.
Quite a few people said/say the same thing about Sam Mendes, I'm not suggesting I fully back him for the job but he'll most likely be on their short list. Sherlock has shown that Paul McGuigan would be more than competent although he's tied up with a new Frankenstein film and won't be directing any of Sherlock series 3.
I still think David Yates, State of Play showed he's more than competent with thrillers and Potter showed he could work within the studio system and with a big budget and for me produced some of the best films of that series although I'm sure some will disagree.
Do we think he is actually considering it, and just trying to give the usual press runaround or do we think he is being honest?
He claims to not feel comfortable with a budget over 100 Million, but isn't that what MGM and Eon want to hear with all their financial troubles?
Source: http://jamesbondbrasil.com/2013/03/cogitado-para-a-direcao-de-bond-24-danny-boyle-diz-que-nao-aceiteria-a-tarefa/
Though if it wound up being Fincher I would be thrilled or Gilroy :D
Morell, again, has another film planned. I find him more likely to give it up and go for Bond than Barnagh, BUT the producers need a director NOW. They don't really have the time to convince someone to give up something.. which they've already failed to do once for Bond 24.
With a better writer (logan) Gilroy could give us a decent bond film.
I would be extremely happy if it was Morrell :D . But what project is he working on ?
Don't recall hearing him being engaged.