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
I don't exactly see the problem with that?
Yes, agreed! Wasn’t trying to argue against what you were saying. Just my thoughts. Ultimately we’ll see what comes of all this and whether the best decisions will be made.
Once again, EoN have been the established Bond filmmakers since 1962.
This is more about “trying” to make things work, Mendes. This is about exploding out of the gate. And IF they just coronate a director who hasn’t made a feature in almost a decade, then yes, that’s concerning to me.
Once again, shall I put these thoughts on the controversial page?
And you must “get over” a director who hasn’t done a feature in seven years!
🙄
There are so many more interesting directors. Maybe Joachim Rønning could be an interesting choice? He could bring a bit of an adventure feeling back into the series.
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).[/quote]
Agree on all your points here. Campbell may lack the polish but his strength's though, come from his heroic storytelling beats as seen in Zorro, GE and CR. I'm hoping they can reinvent Bond in the same way EON themselves did when they made the change from Brosnan to Craig. Meaning they completely scrambled the formula and tropes to come up with a fresh look while still retaining Bond's essential characteristics and of course the Bond sound for the music. I also realize that it might not end up being to my taste, as was the case for Craig's films after CR but I would rather have them roll the dice than fall back and try to recreate TSWLM, GF or other previous Bond films.
Oh, no. You're not alone. I believe he turned down Spectre. His visual style and general style is quite different for Bond. But if he directed Spectre, it would have been a very unique Bond film. Plus, it would have been a standalone Bond film like Skyfall.
Agree on all your points here. Campbell may lack the polish but his strength's though, come from his heroic storytelling beats as seen in Zorro, GE and CR. I'm hoping they can reinvent Bond in the same way EON themselves did when they made the change from Brosnan to Craig. Meaning they completely scrambled the formula and tropes to come up with a fresh look while still retaining Bond's essential characteristics and of course the Bond sound for the music. I also realize that it might not end up being to my taste, as was the case for Craig's films after CR but I would rather have them roll the dice than fall back and try to recreate TSWLM, GF or other previous Bond films. [/quote]
That's an excellent point about Campbell and how he taps into heroic beats of his action films...He's a great craftsman at layering and escalating these beats (one need look no further than Bond chasing the bombmaker in CR, just wonderful and exhilarating and an example of how to build a beginning, middle and an end in an action sequence, with each one being another ascending step (there are no flat-lines)).
Yes, it is a new frontier. Bond could be as different as Downey jr. was to Rathbone.
Plus, Bond is just such an old franchise and has been so many different things already that really unless they really throw everything overboard at once, there's nothing they could tinker with that hasn't been already tinkered with by someone at some point. Maybe some of them not to great effect, but they've already screwed with the gunbarrels; they've done the music all kinds of ways; they've done continuity and aggressive non-continuity; etc. etc. etc.
It really is interesting how the general imagination is that a Bond film is always the same while in reality for pretty much every part of the formula there's an "well, except for the times they didn't do it that way".
That's why it's the best franchise, in a way. Mission Impossible has done better films in the 21st century, but they have no plan past Cruise while Bond has done the actor change loads of times now. Marvel is making more money, but they've tied themselves in knots with their own mythology and it feels impossible to just sit down and watch one of their films without hours of homework before and after. Bourne has no legs anymore, is being shopped around for a new studio possibly without Damon which leads to the same problem as MI with their attempt to transfer to Jeremy Renner as the new lead failing. We'll see how Ballerina does, but I'd say the smart money is on there not being a John Wick: Chapter 25 in 2074.
Bond? Yeah, there's people who can't grasp that code name theory isn't a thing and handwringing about how it's going to return after NTTD, but I've never been worried about that. They'll pop up and say "This guy is playing James Bond now. Here's an adventure he went on" and everyone will sit down and watch it...
Absolutely, he has been mentioned and I am a big fan.
He obviously knows action but I think he is really honing his skills and becoming a well rounded director.
I can see him directing the next actor’ “ Thunderball “
No, as the Director
Yeah. I agree. I know James Bond is action-packed. But a full action director directing Bond, doesn't really excite me. Because he could just make it a standard action film, with lots of action scenes, but no "Wow" moments that Bond needs in action. Drama and thriller directors who take their time to create mood, tension, atmosphere and suspense, have a better chance at creating unusual and exciting action scenes.
Yeah exactly. I enjoyed Extraction but as I recall they were long action scenes really, and the directors of Bond films traditionally don't even handle those bits. I don't recall anything in the non-action parts of Extraction which seemed to make him suitable for Bond, which is much more than just action. But he is very good at action, so maybe second unit.
Now he's honing his directing skills, i doubt if he would revert to doing second unit.
Personally i think he could handle the hugeness of a Bond production. John Glen started out as second unit and like him or not, made some great Bond films..
Probably not, but Bond doesn't need an action film director and has never really picked one, so better to get someone else.
Cuaron it is then. :D
“Great” is a bit much.
I don’t even think Glen was a good second unit or main director. When the action was helmed by Arthur Wooster you did get some amazing action sequences. But when Glen is behind the camera it’s horribly awkward.
John Glen is such a low bar for Bond that we should never go back to.
Daylights is one of my favourites. But that's just me...
Personally I thought LTK was the time for a new director, mainly because of the radical change from the norm with that film.