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 think we can go with "traditionally this is how these films have been produced" anymore. On anything really. The pieces will still be there, but I don't think any of the things we know about the way production was run is still relevant. It's going to be run much closer to a normal international blockbuster.
I'm saying this because I've been thinking about how they're going to choose an actor and a lot of m thoughts on that went along this "well they always do X" line and we just don't know if they are going to keep doing X.
That being said. I think they are going to go with as safe bets as they can manage for script, direction and lead actor to get a score on the board. That's why I also don't think it's going to be Cuaron. Heyman may have talked to him about maybe doing a later film. The Skyfall of this run, if you will. But for the first one, I think they'll want someone to bring that baby in in time and in budget and with all the main pieces popping off. And while just compiling a list of directors Pascal/Heyman have worked with is a fool's errand and the names are sometimes uninspiring I think someone in the vein of Jon Watts, Lord/Miller, David Yates (yikes) or - yes, I made an April Fool's post about him, but only because I think he's an actual contender - Paul King. King of course would probably need a Second Unit Director to do the action.
The set pieces were great in the 80's.
But it depends on the type of film you want to make. We certainly don't need Cuaron if he's only going to direct the scenes with M.
At any rate, while I understand they might want to play certain things safe (ie. keep the Bond theme, the gunbarrel, all the iconic elements etc), I also think there’s little point in making a Bond film if they’re not trying to create the best movie they can. Arguably one of the worst things they can do is make this film underwhelming, average or even generic. It’d feel like a let down given the circumstances. Ultimately it’s in Amazon’s best interest for this film to make an impact.
So I suppose a flip side to that perspective is they might well go for an established, bigger name like Cuaron - someone who has a very distinct visual style and will bring something unique to Bond story wise. A sort of ‘go big or go home’ mentality. Ultimately though we’ll have to see, and it could go either way or in practice be a combination of both mentalities.
It's true that we can't stick to thinking about how they've traditionally been made, but I would think that would just mean they're likely to go with a director who has shown they can handle drama and comedy and action, rather than going with someone who has shown they can do great action and that's it.
Yeah, sticking to the names they've already worked with is a bit silly, but I agree that of that list King is not a crazy idea. He's shown he can do drama and comedy and emotion, handle big set pieces, and make completely brilliant films for the family.
I personally want them to stick with the Craig era tone (CR/QOS) but make them less personal to Bond and more stand alone.
I think it’s one of those things where no one knows what they want until they see it, and we’re very much at the vocal, but speculative part of this process.
I think while a lot of fans would want ‘standalone’ films and perhaps a more traditional/formula based Bond film (and perhaps something ‘lighter’), I don’t think there’s much consensus when we get into specifics about what we want.
It took EON around 2 years to complete a film more or less from scratch, and that's with a loyal team following from film to film. Amazon literally have to start from nothing, on top of casting a new Bond (which is critically important to get right). There's A LOT of work to be done.
Yeah. An announcement doesn't mean the film is guaranteed for 2027. We're definitely going to hear new announcements, since Pascal & Heyman are already working on Bond 26, in an early development stage.
Seeing that video, I started dreaming of a Jodorowski Bond film. :-D I truly love his films 'El Topo' and 'The Holy Mountain', and I wish his 'Dune' had become reality. But in all seriousness, a Jodorowski Bond film would play like a drug-induced trip -- not DAF but DAF to the power DAF.
But the film that truly elevated me from a casual fan to a hardcore fan was FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE on New Years 2004. I remember watching that on DVD for the first time with a nice set up, I found it so engrossing. I realized then that that was the kind of Bond film I wanted, and CASINO ROYALE eventually scratched that itch.
So, I basically would be welcoming of a Bond film right there with FRWL/OHMSS/FYEO/TLD/CR.
Interesting that your first Bond film looks nothing like your favorite films.
Live And Let Die age 6.... But it was only after reading the books in my twenties and seeing TLD that i decided i liked my Bond more serious and down to Earth.
Casino Royale was the apogee of what i want in a Bond film.
I think if the next Bond film was, very broadly, a ‘back to basics’ adventure with a good splash of espionage, danger, a cat and mouse element seen in DN/FRWL/TLD, and some good action sequences along with some good old Bondian humour, villains, women etc. there’s every chance it’d do well. I suspect if it did require Bond to be faced with something more ‘personal’ (I don’t know - perhaps something like TLD where he’s hesitant to assassinate someone for whatever reason, or maybe something like in the books where he’s uneasy about being sent to kill on M’s orders, or perhaps he falls for a woman) I doubt a majority of general audiences would moan.
I don’t see why they shouldn’t do any of that either, at least if the story they want to tell best suits all that. There’s no reason to be chained to making a ‘lighter’ film with goofy humour that rehashes the grander Bond films (not that there’s anything wrong with that in and of itself, and you could argue that describes TSWLM to some extent, but let’s be honest, all Bond films have degrees of light and dark anyway, as well as generally big scales to them). They may as well try to make the best Bond film they can.
I don't know what they're going to do, but I wouldn't rule out this so easily.
I wouldn’t call it parody, but arguably that self referentiality/subversions is something we got in the Craig era. And all Bond films are tongue in cheek to some extent.
But I agree, it’s impossible to say what they’ll do at the moment. I think the only thing that applies is it’ll most likely be a ‘reinvention’ Bond film as EON used to say, and that’s only in the sense they’ll be introducing a brand new Bond and not continuing on from the previous few films plot wise.
If I had to bet, that's exactly what I'd say the next film will be like, yeah.
I reckon Pascal's Holland Spider Man films are a good touchpoint. I don't think B26 will be anything like them on a surface level, but I think in terms of a family appeal with action and gags and drama, and yes, some 'personal' story (because it's a film, why wouldn't you give the main character an emotional storyline?) it will probably be in that ballpark.
I think repetition and staleness is the main reason they should avoid such an approach. At the end of the day Bond films are action thrillers with a dash of suspense and romance, if serious drama is present its most likely going to take a few forms. Either Bond is going to lose someone he cares about, or there's going to be some kind of quite obvious theme or message ("the old ways are the best", "the shadows", "trust", familial connections) and both of these have been well and truly explored in recent films. To do it again, especially with a new actor will just seem like treading water IMO. I think when there's a new Bond people want to see what's different - they want something new. Unless they have some crazy unique or novel concept that none of the other films touched on already, then I think the better option is to come up with a different approach, and shake things up creatively. I'd love them to come up with a really gripping intriguing story in the modern day which does not shy away from commenting on geopolitics (a bit like TLD/GE), and then once they have a clear story mapped out, then see if a obvious arc/stakes for the character present themselves. It seems to me, especially with B25, that they started with where they wanted to leave their Bond and then worked backwards to figure out how to get him there.
I never said anything about rehashing the Craig era. In fact what I described, insofar as it’s very broad and describes no specific story, is less comparable to SP and NTTD and more akin to the early Connery films, and TLD etc.
I don’t understand the claim that any personal conflict for Bond would automatically be the same as they were in the recent films either (or indeed how ideas like old vs new, or the idea of spy work changing in the modern world couldn’t be done very differently in a new film, or why those specific things aren’t desirable at all in a Bond film. Those two themes have cropped up at least since GE, if not before).