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
Joking obviously but I think somebody like him (my favourite Bond director) is exactly what the series needs. An action film director who's happy to stay on and who can make consistently good Bond movies.
Yep, we need John Glen v2 with a bit more visual flair than the original. Then we'll be set for the next few years.
Indeed. Give me a hug @Samuel001 :-((
;)
Mendes is neither the start nor the end of the film world There are others out there, probably really eager to give it a try. Better directing material, me thinks.
You're very stubborn. ;) He says "the person" they built the movie around, and he's talking about Daniel, as I'm sure you noticed. I love Javier and all, and so does Sam, but seriously, Sam isn't talking about him, doesn't mention him, and you know it.
But I agree with you that it seems the decision had not yet been made at that time.
Be prepared for the return of great dialogue.
:O
Haven't seen Chuck but the other bloke made Terminator Salvation and doesn't seem to be very good at story and characters.
He'd be good. Loved In Bruges.
:))
I sincerely hope you're joking about McG? He couldn't direct traffic!
too.
Still, I quote from 'The James Bond Archives'. It was quite a bit of typing, but perhaps you now understand why I'd like a similar production approach for Bond 24. And most importantly, it shows how 'big names' not only are good marketing, but they inspire an entire team creatively. And it also shows that extra production time is more often a blessing than a curse. That's what Bond 24 needs as well if you ask me:
Wow! Thanks so much. I really want this book
Good shout. Plausible as well. Of the names previously mentioned I lean towards Wright. He's inventive, much more so than what I've seen of Hooper. As for the Nolan chat, it's absurd. I don't understand people falling over themselves to have him installed. I love his Batman films and I think The Prestige was a great bit of pop cinema. He's not a name for Bond though. He may have been pre-2005. Not anymore.
SaintMark Let's get something straight these films are not made for fans of the franchise like yourself who most likely like a return to the type of film that Roger Moore made.
Things have moved on you might not like the DC era but it's proved most successful and I doubt the next Craig film will make you any more happy. Lets face it this era of Bond is not for you and your views on some of those directors like Fincher I couldn't disagree with any more if I tried, fancy bringing his much maligned debut as an example of his unsuitability.
The fact you'd want mockney cockney Richie more speak volumes of the kind of cinema you like and as for your choice of no name directors have you forgotten the success whether you like it or of Skyfall with an Oscar winning director, there is no way some modern day John Glen will get the job for a long time yet.
I don't think Fincher would direct a Bond film but he puts to shame most directors working today also please can everyone drop Nolan this is not going to happen, this obsession with him helming a Bond film is a boat that long set sail. Once again these films aren't made for fan boys some of you need to realise they aren't going to be your personal wet dream.
Gustav, I was merely pointing out that you added Bardem's name where it didn't belong, and since you posted the video yourself you surely knew what Mendes was saying.
I do appreciate you took the time to type those bits from the book, but it's not new info, really, and also I must say it doesn't support your earlier claim regarding Bardem.
I have nothing against "big names" - directors, actors etc. - as long as they're suitable for the job. I don't, however agree that "big names" as such would inspire others creatively. Mendes is good with people, and actors generally like and respect him, and indeed he allows creativity, and it's easy to see why actors like working with him. Some "big name" director could very well think that his ideas are the only ones that really matter. About the production time - extra time might help, but also might not, as has been repeated here over and over. It depends on how things are going (with script, people working on the film etc.).
I remember very well there's a storyboard somewhere showing that in some Bond some very well known actor had been cast but didn't do it in the end. The other actor in the actual movie was then a "second choice" (words that you'll never hear some one say in this business, while it happens all the time :) ). Ah, being old.. 20 years ago I'd given you it instantly, now it remains on the tip of my tongue.
1. Didn't Deakens confirm he is definitly coming back last month? Thought he did..
2. There is no one director fits all on these boards (though Mendes post skyfall comes very close I felt Skyfall was good but not great and even I am a little sad to hear he isn't returning) that said of the names tossed around Hooper and Martin McDonagh. seem likely though Pierre Morrell is still my number 1 choice
mystery of michael clayton + fun of duplicity + action of Bourne legacy = a really good bond 24
http://www.iamrogue.com/news/movie-news/item/8400-sam-mendes-will-not-in-fact-direct-bond-24.html
"Be interesting to hear from that little bitch matt damon now that sf has gone supernova."
Comment of the year so far.