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
Yep, it was time for a shake up.
I'd be up for that!
Both those films are over a decade old, let it go dude.
What are you talking about? Maybe you should reread my post.
Yet you’re getting hot and bothered by a director who did a HP film back in ‘04, Children of Men in ‘06, Gravity 12 years ago, and Roma, a beautifully shot snore-fest in 2018.
He hasn’t shot a feature in seven years and the only thing he’s done of note was the, again, beautifully shot, but tonally and narratively messy, Disclaimer for Apple.
If we are being honest, the last solid film Cuarón has made was back in ‘06…so, @Mendes4Lyfe who should get over what?
I honestly hope they cast a wide net for the Bond director. Lots of interviews and callbacks and poking and prodding…There are plenty of talented filmmakers out there brimming with ideas. Why bolt yourself to a guy that hasn’t made a feature film for seven years, and the last one to show flashes of action was made almost 20 years ago.
I have to believe there are more directors being queried…
That’s the thing, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , I don’t have one director in mind at all. But my hope was the best and brightest would be brought in for constant meetings to see who has the best vision for James Bond. And when I say the best and brightest, I mean bring in the straight up big action directors, bring in thriller directors, call in the big boys like Fincher and Nolan and Villeneuve and Cuaron. Bring in some women who have directed thrillers and action and suspense films. Bring in dramatic directors who also know how to create suspense and tension in their genre. Bring in the best of the best.
Cast a wide net (like they’ll hopefully do with the man who will eventually play Bond), and see what’s popping and who has the ideas that are popping.
I just find it hard to believe that Cuaron, a man who hasn’t directed a film in seven years, whose last project looked beautiful but was very messy, is the one and only.
To me, I hope he’s one of many that they’re vetting for this most important role; not only is this person going to be launching a new James Bond film, not only will they be launching a new era after a long pause, they’re launching an entirely new team, new figureheads, since 007 was first released into our pop culture. This is a huge undertaking and to simply anoint one man without vetting others is concerning (IF true).
Yeah. These are valid points @peter
I suppose it’s worth saying the last three Craig films actually have a wide array of tones, ranging from fatalistic darkness to good old fashioned Bondian humour, nostalgia, and even outright breeziness. So short of something really radical there’ll be some similarities.
Personally, I’m still not sure we’re looking at a much needed course correction Bond movie (insofar as the Craig era was relatively successful and even if EON aren’t the ones to be helming the next film I think they’ll be looking at what worked from at least a couple of those films, which is fair enough). With Amazon at the wheel it’ll inevitably feel different though. I can see them retaining some broad ideas or attempt to harness some of what worked with the Craig era (at least in their minds) though.
All of Cuaron's film's have had a particular style to them, much in the way Campbell's film's have. Both have been able to take an established franchise and bring fresh blood to it without losing the series trademark tropes and tone. Whether or not Cuaron is actually picked is not the point but shows us the kind of directors they could be looking to. Regarding the time lapse between films, there are lots of excellent directors out there who have not lost their touch over time.
And perhaps it's for the best.
You're the one who's been constantly pushing for a return to Moore/Brosnan style campiness. Those films are decades (plural) old, let it go dude.
"Roma" as a snore-fest? What? I understand everyone has different tastes — not everyone likes melodramas — but that film creates such incredible contrasts in the class landscape of Mexico through these dynamic frames of background/foreground. Some of the best composition in a film in the last ~ten years, as far as I'm concerned. Snore-fest is a bit too aggressive of a term to use...
A bit reminiscent of the "suburban melodrama director takes on Bond 23?" questions back then. Look how that turned out!
Yes, Hollywood has changed a lot since then.
I'm glad you liked it. But for me, although every shot was undoubtedly a masterpiece in visual composition, the story was a superficial melodrama. Slow. Plodding. On the surface representaions of the cliche: pregnancy out of wedlock, cheating husband.....Two hours of someone picking up dog poop or going for walks didn't quite grasp me.
And that's my main concern with Cuaron..,outside of HP (21 years ago), and Children of Men (19 years ago), storytelling takes a back seat to visual composition, and visuals only take me so far in a film. It has to be a marriage between the narrative and the the moving picture.
I'd say Cuaron has a far more distinctive and polished style compared with Campbell.
And once again, I'm not against Cuaron, I'm just finding it very strange that Amazon and the producers have supposedly latched on to this one director, a guy who hasn't shot a feature for almost a decade, whose last film was a beautifully shot, yet narratively dull soap opera; whose last project was a narratively messy limited series for Apple.
They're launching a whole new era of Bond films, and I expect(ed) they'll be interviewing a wide variety of talented directors and not hitching their ride onto one person (without investigating the talent that's out there).
Bingo.
Indeed. At any rate even with Roma nothing wrong with a drama director doing a Bond film 😉
Anyway, we’ll see. I’m personally more drawn to Cuaron than Nolan or Villeneuve.
Strange post. Nothing that Hally said contradicts my thoughts.
It’s also strange, @Mendes4Lyfe , that you tell another member to give up films made a decade ago, yet you’re obsessing for a filmmaker who made a Potter film 21 years ago; made Children of Men nineteen years ago, and; his last feature effort was seven years ago. It’s ironic, @Mendes4Lyfe that’d you tell someone to “give it up” about films a decade old, but what are you doing?
Anyways, of course a Cuaron should be in the mix. But if the rumours are true and he’s the one and only, I’m concerned about the coronation of a guy who hasn’t really done much of consequence in the last decade, and if we’re being honest, the film he’s done that most cite is Children of Men (which is almost two decades old). Does this automatically eliminate Cuaron in my eyes? Of course not. And I never said that, but…
…For the first time in Bond’s history, the official series will be produced by someone not named Broccoli, Wilson or Saltzman. I’d have thought there’d be a massive cattle call of the finest directing talent out there (amongst other heads of department (writing, casting, costume))… If they’re not talking to an entire range of talent, then yes, that’d make me concerned. That’s all (and although I’m not fan of Nolan, I think he should also be in on the mix, along with the big boys named Fincher and Villeneuve, and; as I mentioned yesterday: bring in top women directors (plenty work in the space of thrillers and suspense); bring in top dramatic directors who’ve shown a flair of creating tension in their films; hell bring in top notch horror-thriller directors. There’s a lot of talent out there that should be explored…)
Edit: @007HallY .. if you look at my posts from yesterday and today, I said bring in directors of all genres, including drama. I personally, would be more interested in a Cuaron Bond film over a Villeneuve or a Nolan Bond film, but, I also think they should blow the doors off the search for a director and anointing Cuaron (IF true), is concerning (as there is a load of talent out there). Sometimes I wonder if people read posts to see what they want to see?
Because they’re not established as Bond producers. It’s basically been a sixty year family run business. This is uncharted territory. I’m not saying that Cuaron is a bad choice. I have my reservations about him, but no more than any director.
However, I expect(ed) a thorough search of the top available talent (and if Cuaron is the best option at the end of a vetting process, then he’s the best option. Is there something controversial to this opinion @Mendes4Lyfe ? Should I post these mundane thoughts on the controversial thread?).
Anyhow, since Makeshift should “get over” films that are a decade plus, are you going to do the same? Just asking for a friend…
I think that’s fair. I guess what I was trying to get at was we don’t really know what’s going on with this process. We don't even know if it’ll be Cuaron at the moment. But if he’s being seriously considered it could be a combination of reasons which might point to him being the best bet (ie. Other directors of similar experience not being available sooner or wanting to do it, perhaps they’ve met and talked it over and impressed them with a vision for Bond etc). I don’t know though. Maybe he is being anointed and it’s at the expense of better options.
As I said repeatedly in my comments: IF….
I’m not assuming anything. My thoughts are based on IF….