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
Hahahahahaha brilliant, Cubby, Brilliant.
If Aronofsky did to Bond what he planned to do with Batman, we would all be getting our pitchforks and torches ready to charge his house.
Oh? I'm afraid I have no idea what he planned to do with Batman (I don't have much interest in Batman, anyway). But I can't quite imagine Barbara and Michael would even consider asking Daniel to work closely with him for such a long time, with tons of work, pressure, exhaustion and occasional differing opinions. For all I know they might be best buddies now, but like I said, it would be asking for trouble...
Yeah, I think a lot of time people feel "exploring the character" equates to "digging into his backstory." I don't think that's going to be the case for Bond 24 since there's really nothing more to say about his backstory.
Does Dan know Aronofsky?
Anyway, to answer the Batman question, Aronofsky was working on adapting Frank Millers comic masterpiece Batman: Year One into a film, but Bruce Wayne (the billionaire) would be poor and Alfred (his butler and guardian) was to be a black mechanic. I am sure there is more information available on the failed project, but my Batman loving heart couldn't take reading what else he had planned for my favorite comic book hero.
So, pretty much he planned on making Batman in his own vision to the point that he wasn't even Batman anymore. I shutter to think what he would do with Bond. He is probably a big proponent of the codename theory... :-S
:)) at that last comment. Thanks for the info on planned Batman butchering, sounds pretty weird.
I don't know to what extent Daniel knows Aronofsky, but I suppose some, at least. Everything peaceful I assume, and Rachel and Aronofsky presumably remain friends, which is good especially since they have a small kid.
But still, no point in pushing personal relationships unnecessarily, which I think a Bond movie very well might do.
I know Cubby is seen as some kind of god and yes we have a lot to thank him for but when I see comments like this from him I have to wonder if he really knew potential when he saw it, no lets get John (Generic) Glen to direct 5 films in a row instead.
He had the same kind of attitude towards Lazenby. Just like with Spielberg I wonder did he know potential when he saw it? He made some great choices for Bond but also some bad ones, I would say.
Aren't we not digging a bit too deep in this first bit of Bond 24 news? I mean, in 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' we're digging deep into Bond's character too.
I think every Bond film has a certain kind of 'theme' apart from the Bond character. 'Skyfall' in essence was about 'M', MI6 and modern espionage in today's society on the whole.
Bond 24 might very well be a movie about a diabolic, but very realistic villain's scheme. A movie that is finally about Bond trying to save a real world that is in real danger (a la 'Octopussy' or 'Thunderball'), about SPECTRE and/or Blofeld. No true revenge plans, but simply a scheme in which the villain is playing out countries for fools, basically ending up with just a lot of money on the Swiss SPECTRE bank account.
Something like that :-).
I think Tom Hooper, David Fincher, Joe Wright, Christopher Nolan, Darren Arnonofsky and Martin McDonagh would be great directors to explore such a story; a Blofeld/SPECTRE plot, penned by John Logan.
Completely agree with you on here. 'Cubby' is always considered the godfather of Bond, and he is in many ways. But he indeed made some rather weird decisions. I do think Barbara and Michael are approaching Bond differently, allthough they won't admit it. It would be kind of weird to 'complain' about 'Cubby' on his grave.
But I believe 'Cubby' could not have done something like 'Skyfall'. There were some talks back in 1986 to adopt a Casino Royalé-like story, in which Bond was re-introduced. That was considered way too risky by 'Cubby', thus they slightly altered 'The Living Daylights' story, which originally was also meant for Roger Moore.
It's quite obvious that Barbara and Michael are willing to take more risks. And in today's cinema market that's inevitable. That's why we have 'Skyfall'. In a similar way like 'Cubby' and Harry introduced us to Bond, Michael and Barbara are doing more or less the same since 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall'.
Isn't Spielberg working on turning another abandoned Kubrick project (Napoleon) into a TV series or something? QI looked awful and totally unlike anything Kubrick would ever have made.
Indeed. Much like they'd never say a bad word about Connery. I suppose both are to be expected, though.
not that either will do it but still interesting to see who is rumored and who isnt
Hmmm, it's a very interesting anddd logical choice too. I wouldn't be too surprised if she will be picked. It means again an Oscar winning director for Bond......that's some kind of continuity ;-). In all honest, I think 'Skyfall' and 'Casino Royale' feel very similar in style and tone....both very Fleming-esque films.
Oooh, Bigelow is an interesting pick. I wouldn't mind EON pondering that over.
Previously, I was hoping that Tom Hooper would be chosen as the director for Bond 24, but this interview makes me a bit worried. I thought Skyfall was appropriately witty: Not too much, not too little. If Hooper wants less seriousness and more wit, we might slide back into Pierce Brosnan-era territory.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article3711894.ece
May be some clues about B24 if anyone could open this up? Damn Times.
I can't believe you now have to subscribe to read articles. X(
Making the case for Campbell's return; he recently directed this advert:
The actual product looks like dogshit but the ad is pretty good, far from excellent but still pretty good. The think that actually slows it down is the reliance on the actual product itself. The bit with the girl jumping and doing stunts at the start before we see the ipad rip-off is fantastic.
I love the Sherlock Holmes films so Guy Ritchie would be fine with me. But I think we need to think outside the box (just like Mendes was outside the box). I asked this a couple of times but never got an answer. Remember when Roger Mitchell was in negotiations to direct Quantum of Solace? I've never seen any of his films, would he be a good choice if EON decided to contact him again?
Roger Mitchell? Hmm. I think I've only seen a few... Buddha of Suburbia (tv series) was so long ago I don't really remember enough to even comment, but I do remember liking it then. The three movies I've seen were Notting Hill (syrupy ending, but otherwise quite fun from what I remember). And the two he did with Daniel, Mother and Enduring Love, both interesting (I'd recommend them), and definitely nothing whatsoever like the light-hearted Notting Hill. But Bond? It's hard to say, it's so different. But like you said, Sam was hardly an obvious choice, either, and did a great job, so who knows. A non-obvious director might produce more interesting results, or then it might really go wrong... and an obvious choice might be safe, but boring - or not boring. Mitchell can do interesting, even disturbing character stuff, and also comedy. I have no idea about action, and I'd need to see more of what he's done, anyway. But if he's been in negotiations to do Bond before, well... He'd certainly be an interesting choice.
Well it seems for the last two films we've had "interesting" directors and one turned out well and one turned out bad so it'll be interesting to see what EON is thinking