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
Yes, it does make logical sense. The key is not over working it. I'm hoping Mendes isn't too heavy handed, but I'd be a liar of I said I wasn't worried. This doesn't need to turn into an ensemble piece, there needs to be a very clear delineation between star and supporting cast. I just hope he doesn't jump on the bandwagon. He has to understand that another director will pick up the mantle at some point and it isn't necessary for him to dedicate too much time and energy to wrapping up their stories this time around, the focus should be Bond. I don't want to see MP shoe-horned into the narrative just to satisfy Mendes' lust for development. If he's keen to do that he should sign on for the rest of the Craig tenure and pace it.
+1
Please, do not turn Bond 24 into another Sam Mendes-movie, like SF. Personally I'm not a Bond fan because of "character development." After three reboots the character should be developed by now. My problem is: the general audience love character development.
I don't mind character development regards Bond. I think if it's tempered correctly and you can see his journey then I'm all for it. It's the peripheral characters I'm more worried about. At the end of the day, a film is very dependent on narrative. If I wanted a multi-strand character piece, I'd watch a TV show like The Wire. TV is primarily dependent on character, film is driven by narrative. Mendes needs to make a great stand alone story first and foremost, with neat character moments punctuating and driving that narrative.
I think it´s more marketing than anything. If they made a solid old-fashioned Bond adventure and sold it right, I´m sure they´d cash in phenomenally.
Fair enough.
From a wider perspective, character doesn't stop developing. You, I, or anyone on this forum develops, adapts, progresses, based on our surroundings, our interactions, socially, politically etc. Bond shouldn't be any different. The Fleming Bond delivered much in the way of character and the development of that character. It seems like the obvious way to inject a freshness into the franchise, without having to rely solely on the numerous tropes that came to define the cinematic incarnation. I want Adam-style sets, great set pieces, exotic locations etc, but I'm also happy for them to allude to Bond's mental/physical state, his attitude towards his job, his employers, the world he exists in. It was ever-present in the novels and, if it's handled correctly, can feed neatly into the films without hampering the narrative.
Frankly, that is not very likely. We can only hope that Mendes does his character stuff in an interesting way that does not totally obscure Bond or the plot. But I think if there's one thing that's certain, Bond 24 will be another Sam Mendes-movie, like SF. The box office and EON are expecting it.
Not that it matters that much, but for the record, I would say that Fleming´s novels, rather than developing Bond´s character, re-imagined it in each new novel.
Also, the franchise did very fine without any character development throughout all of Connery´s and Moore´s films. They had something of the immovability of Hammett´s hard-boiled Continental Op, which is quite a value. A man using the peace within himself for higher purposes. Shows a certain selflessness. I´m not saying that´s the only option though to portray Bond´s character. Depending on your point of view, SF showed both Bond´s character´s immovability and its development.
I think we'll be waiting a long time before Mendes takes us down the MR route! Although I don't think anyone really expected Tamahori to take the direction he did on DAD - so you can never quite tell.
Which one? Bond 24, my hypothetical Bond 24 or 25?
But, having had to succumb to a serious case of Partridge-addiction recently, I wouldn´t mind him in any film. Actually, I think he´s such a good actor, he could even pull off a seriously sinister villain, not just a parody.
You're right. Just occasionally he does tend to slip into Partridge no matter what role he's playing. I don't even think he's aware of it.
What makes you so sure if you do not mind me asking? On a seperate note, how good was King Lear?
Well, although he is a bit short (which I am not sure would look well in cinema), Beale, especially in the early scenes, when Lear is still assuming full power, is full of tyrannical authority, plays perfectly the man to whom nobody dares to say no to. He played many productions directed by Mendes (seven or nine I think), thus they know each other well and before Lear he was also Iago back in 1997, in another production directed by Mendes. So he is used to play Shakespearean characters with Mendes, and Blofeld is described by Fleming as Shakespearean. Beale is also heavy set like Blofeld in the novel TB. He was also, I believe, rumored in the past to play a Bond villain. That does not mean much, I know: fresher rumors mention someone else for the villain, and they do have some credibility.
As for the play, it was amazing.
I would certainly like to see them involved in a future Bond film, Schoenaerts in particular. There's something about the guy that just screams Bond villain.
Waltz has loads of charisma, but he would have to take care that the role differs enough from the bunch of similar roles he had in Tarantino films recently.
Movie magic will save things. Wasn´t it that Humphrey Bogart stood on a box when he looked down on Ingrid Bergmann in Casblanca? Or look at The Expendables: You´ll hardly find a shot where the looming Dophgren looks as much taller than Stallone as he really is.
Not to forget small Bond Craig ;-).
Well it depends what role you play. This would be my only potential reservation about Simon Russell Beale, that and his naturally friendly face. But with the right haircut and makeup, he could look nasty.