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
IMO the gaps don't have anything related about quality of the movie...
Most of the time it was because of juridical issues and then...the 3 years gap beetween 1999 and 2002 gave us....Die Another Day.
And although I would love for a two year cycle, please EON don't rush it. Get us a worthy SF sucsessor
See, it just starts to sound too Austin Powers/destroying the world type Bond story. I know many people on here are fond of that, but for the GA it's got pretty tired.
I got the point about what you mean but...well why not?
In 60's,70's and 80's it was a 2 years gap and that gave us a lot of good movies...not of all of them right...but we love them anyways.
Or... is that a little too close to the bone...? /:)
the only way I would be ok with Blofield is something radical like Blofield being the name the boss uses like a cover name to conceal his real name and if anyone found out his real name and who he was he would have them killed instantly Making Blofield a bit like Keyser Soze. but Eon would never go for it and most fans would be pissed by it so it would be best just to work more with Quantum.
Precisely! Quantum is the new Spector and this organization must have a leader, and that person must be Blofeld. I get the feeling that Quantum was used in QoS because that is the direction that the producers want to steer the series now that they've re-started it. Think of how many films they could role out if Blofeld were back as head of Quantum. I'm sure thats what they hope to begin doing, but before they could go there they had to solve the M problem.
love the P&W news,
hate that they included
THE ARTICLE CONTAINS SOME MIGHTY GARGANTUAN SPOILERS.
I think they should bring back Quantum for Bond 24 or 25. They certainly didn't do the organisation justice in QOS.
P.S. Dame Judi Dench wil be interviewed on London's Heart radio station during the breakfast show for anyone who is interested.
Anyone think he's up to direct Bond?
Purvis and Wade i think did an 'alright' job - they started off with TWINE and DAD - two let downs, but also two scripts that were savaged after the fact by the directors (who felt the desire to change a lot of stuff around)... but they were also involved in the creating of CR and SF... QOS, can't entirely blame them on - thanks to Haggis' strike commitments..... so they batted an even .500 for me..
they most likely will... that was the plan to begin with - QUANTUM will be Craig's SPECTRE... but i thought they did the organization perfect in QOS... we got a brief glimpse - but that was all - just a taste.. something to build off of for future films.... little reveals at a time tend to work better that way over a stretch of films - because you're not frontloading information into 1 or 2 films..
I they'd offered him the job he would have to relinquish X-men, to be honest apart from Fassbender when I watched First Class again, the first time after the cinema I found it incredibly underwhelming, it did not live up to a second viewing.
So if Vaughn is in line I'd be happy, I think he could do a good Bond film, some of the moments in First Class have got a Bondian feel it's just it isn't consistent.
thats the difference between a film directed by John Glen - and one directed by Sam Mendes
Not sure what you mean, but in my book Glen is a Bond legend. Maintaining the quality he did over 5 back to back films is some achievement. And, with the exception of AVTAK (which still has its moments), they are 5 of the best IMO.
Mendes has had a long time to make SF good. I haven't seen it yet but everything point towards it being very good. However, I'd be even more impressed if Mendes was able to knock out a FYEO, OP, TLD and LTK... all within 8-9 years.
Now that's what I call entertainment!
I don't want to wait 4 years for every film. It's just not right.
People have singled out TND and QoS for being rushed, which is true, but IMO they have a fast paced and enjoyable quality because of that. TND is IMO the best Brosnan and I preferred QoS to the slightly over-long CR.
John Glen as an artist director, was about as skilled as a 3 year old finger painting.... he visually lacked substance.... i do enjoy his films - but you put his visual style against any other director in the franchise, and he's arguably the weakest.... but - he was able to crunch out all those Bond movies - so in the end, you sacrifice artistic style for time...
QOS (sans the action) and SF are arguably the 2 most visually striking and artistic films in the entire franchise, because you have directors who have a certain style - and they are able to put their stamp on a Bond film, and thus make it standout visually from the rest of the pack.
Not sure Glen can take all responsibility for that - camera and production design play a larger or at least equal role arguably than director in determining how the film will look.
That said, while Glen's films lack the visual flair of the classic Connery/Ken Adam movies, this does not detract from their overall enjoyment. And for that, Glen deserves a considerable amount of credit.
not sure how many film sets you've worked on... but those decisions are ALL made by the director.... the DP (director of photography) is told by the director how he wants to shoot any particular scene, and how he visualizes it (in terms of blocking - that is actor placement within the scene, and staging - set dressing, lighting and etc - and also camera movement).. its then up to the DP to make sure he can create exactly what the director's vision is..... cameramen, cinematographers, production designers - they are all there to assist the director and achieve his vision...... cameramen just dont shoot whatever they feel like - set designers just don't design whatever they feel like either lol..
I accept your point, but you almost seem to imply that it's irrelevant who does the camera work and/or the sets. My argument is that as a collaborative process, a good cameraman and production designer are equally responsible for the look and feel of the film. A director like Hitchcock practically designed and conceived of every shot, but I don't believe a director like (say) Mendes will have had the same extreme level of control as that. He will have relied heavily on his team to achieve his vision. Directors who are equally talented in camerawork and production design are extremely, extremely rare.
And as far as Bond goes I'm not totally sure you're right any way. I suspect that Ken Adam had a lot of creative freedom and that his instructions came from the producers rather than the directors, who were essentially (talented) hacks. Not only that, but in the past at least, all the action was done by the 2nd unit, without the director sometimes even being there.
I'm not sure how much design work you've done, but if you don't mind me patronising you for a moment, there are a hundred different ways in which a designer can interpret a brief, and different production designers can often deliver very different interpretations of a director's 'vision'.
Lol.
Thank GOD those 2 idiots are gone!
That couldn't be farther from the truth - it matters a great deal who your camera men and DP are... imagine you are shooting a movie, and you need to hire a Director Of Photography and his crew... are you going to pick someone like Roger Deakins? or Dean Cundy? or Wally Pfister?... or someone who shoots one of those lousy SyFy Channel movies??..... picture it also like someone who needs a bit of graphic design work done - they have a computer in front of them, but they may not know how to use photoshop to create what they want as much as someone who is a professional at it - so they go out and hire said professional to help them out..... do you get what i am saying?.... there are some directors who are their own DPs (Robert Rodriguez is one of them), but the majority of them hire DPs who can take what they visualize in their head - as well as in storyboards, and visually put it together in front of a camera... some DPs are better at doing it than others - which why you'll hear the names i mentioned above a lot when it comes to filmmaking.... and yes, you are right, a good cameraman and production designer are equally responsible for the look and feel of the film - but that look and feel usually 99% of the time starts from 1 place - the director... he tells the DP "hey this that and the other needs to happen in this scene." - the DP then takes that, tells the cameramen how the cameras need to be setup, he then tells the various other people (like grips, gaffers set dressers) what needs to go where, and they follow his instruction...
Hitchcock didn't operate the cameras - he didn't rig all the lighting himself - he didn't go through and set dress every little detail of each scene in his films... he relied heavily on his crew just as much as any other director would...
I do really wonder what you think a director on a film does??.. do you think he only yells "action" and "cut" on a scene??...... there is countless COUNTLESS hours of preproduction that goes into a movie that you don't see - that is where storyboarding usually happens - and i guarantee you Mendes did a lot of work with storyboards, in creating and conceiving those shots on paper beforehand - almost every director does - most will hire a storyboard artist (because they are lousy drawers lol), but some like Zach Snyder will do all their storyboards themselves... it helps not only the director and DP get on the same page, and what they'll need for certain scenes in terms of lighting, camera placement and whatnot - but also for set design.... the director will usually sit down with the production designer, explain to him what he envisions for a particular set - and then the production designer will sketch out a few ideas - if the director likes them, they run with it - but he can also ask for changes to be made to better achieve his vision.... it's then the designer's job to create what the director sees in his head - once that is done, the production designer goes off and does his thing with creating what he and director agreed upon into a full scale set on a studio lot...
the fact that you called Mendes an Auteur - and then to make the statement saying "i don't believe a director like Mendes will have had the same extreme level of control." is completely contradictory - thats what an Auteur does!!! lol.
i've done plenty of design work - enough to know that it's a collaborative process between the designer and the customer - and enough to know that in the end, it's what the customer wants that wins out, not what i want.. and thats the point i am stressing here - but you don't seem to understand...
.. whatever the production designer comes up with, must be approved by the director... do u think a director just lets a designer 'wing it'?... no - the director tells him what he wants to see, and the designer does it... now - often times, the designer will add his own creative input into the details, afterall, he is a designer.... but the designer just doesn't come up with whatever, and that is what the director is stuck with using... if the production designer comes up with lousy designs that are not in line with the director wants, then he'll be let go - and the director will find another production designer....