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
But after all, his work is really a James Bond 007 License to Kill ersatz.
The 007 Gendre is set in the anals of Film History and Legend.
It is a PATENT.
Everything else is Copyright infringement and Intellectual Property theft.
In my humble opinion.
James Bond will live as long as there are intelligent species on Earth to enjoy Fun, Excitement, Danger, and Bleached Blondes. \m/
"To be honest, i wouldn't want a 'Steven Spielberg Bond', it just doesn't fit."
After what he did with the Indiana Jones franchise, I wouldn't want him touching Bond either.
Mod edit: Let's not use that language, shall we?
The other major reason is because as you point out @PrinceKamalKhan, as a big-time, impressively creative director, he'd want more artistic control than they'd be willing to give him. The Bond series, certainly mostly for better than worse in my opinion, has always been dominated by its producers rather than its directors. The talents, vision and drive of Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson are why it's lasted as long as it has - and is still in existence today...
There are things i understand what there like from him, but not everthing of it i like to see in Bond. In specialy the freedom he have with Indiana Jones and his artistic ideas for Potter. I also don't whant Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Paul Greengrass (or any other Politic directer. This be why i whas not happy in the first place with Paul Haggis as writer) for Bond. Mabey if have been a starting directer, because he can mess less with the moost inportent Bond standards. Standards are more inportent then producers that proofs DAD and CR for a part. This same DAD/CR made that iam more worried about Spielberg and P&W then Spielberg and the producers. After CR i have mixed feelings or i whant to see another Bond from Martin Campbell or it should be another Goldeneye.
What we really need is ALL 23 films in BOND 23 (or 24 if you count NSNA). B-)
IF any of y'all haven't seen it, you should!!
What are you talking about, sir? You want another film loaded with obvious references to the rest? Forget it. Nothing suites the 50th B-day of the cinematic Bond better than a darn good film, without additional silliness.
And if Spielberg is too expensive for Bond, if he actually wanted to do it could he not lower his price? Or is partnership his price?
Most likely, Spielberg would get bored not having creative control over the movie, and negotiations would be a nightmare.
I know he likes the 007 series and would have loved to have been part of it. And he can be critical of the series simply because who he is and the experience he has making films. I would always take time listening to his opions and don't dismiss them because my fanboyish side would disagree with him. What do I know really.
I rather have a brilliant Indy 5 by Spielberg.
Edit by Luds: Please refrain from using profanities.
Maybe EON can learn something from Raiders since they seemed to have partly lost their way in the past 10 years!!
Me, too. Maybe he is available after all? I loved Crystal Skull. No idea why people are rambling about that one.