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
BTW, would love to see Mr. Hinx back.
That's true. Mediocre will not work this time. QoS and SP came after two very successful films, and had comparatively short breaks (2 years and 3 years). They had momentum in their favour. Bond 25 will come after a largely forgotten entry, and have one of the largest gaps in the series. If this film goes ahead as planned it had better be top notch stuff. Because if it falls short it will have repurcussions on how people see the state of the franchise.
Well written @Univex ... these words, as well as others who PM'd en masse today, are amazing. The Colonel saw that too.
But, I think he's going back into hibernation, lol... The aggressiveness of a couple people can't be worth his time, nor, as he says about another one of the recent posters, drive-by passive-aggressive attackers.
He said it's these two or three that have hijacked decorum and debate. I tend to agree and, like him, though, read a lot of amazing voices as well (we can disagree, like, for instance, Mr. @Univex, I think Hinx belongs in a Moore film. I personally don't want to see Hinx again-- but I don't have to scratch out your eyes about this... I actually love the more grounded henchmen found in the first three Bond films, that's all)...
So, once again, insightful words from a man who experienced similar slings and arrows and understands why Colonel's made this decision (yet again!).
P
Not according to Hamlet.
I'll second that it's been not the same without your insight into the process. Lots of speculation from those who are fumbling in the dark and of course @peter & @RC7 offering their professional take on things which has been much needed.
This turning on Craig had got to ridiculous levels, although in this fake news climate I'm not surprised, I'm utterly ashamed of my own countries press on this event and even now Baz is turning on DC, the press have never liked him.
I've spoken to @peter about this but I think some forget that DC is the first bonafide internet Bond. I'd like to see how the notoriously touchy Connery and even the statesman like late great Sir Roger Moore would have reacted to this level of exposure let alone Tim or Pierce.
Anyway seems like a lot of hyperbole and we should hear some solid news soon, once again it's great to have you back.
I subscribe to all of this wholeheartedly! Well said.
Really as Pink Floyd are my favourite band and have been for over 3 decades I'd say it's pretty much their worse album, a thinly veiled David Gilmour solo album with guest stars, Divison Bell (then that is hardly Wish, Darkside, Animals or Meddle for that matter) is much better but I digress.
The Colonel has indeed bought some much needed levity to this thread and forum again.
Yes @Shardlake, when you mentioned this before -- Daniel Craig being the first internet Bond-- I thought it was one of the most intelligent observations I had read in quite some time.
Yes, Prickly Connery didn't like the press period. The attention Craig receives, would have driven Connery into retirement, immediately!
Indeed, but really nothing new. As I said, we really have discussed all of what he mentioned over and over again. It is the nature of this thread to circle back several times to old topics in the news vacuum and then burst forward in an agitated fasion whenever there is a surprising turn of events. Sadly, there appears to have been too much of both (surprises as well as news vacuums) over these past few years. I still contend that this thread is a legend and a most entertaining place to be. Just don't take anything too seriously and go with the flow.
agreed, but gone too soon.
I don't blame them too much for the Brosnan era. They were producing these films for the first time without their father. LTK under-performing put a lot of pressure on them into not only bringing back Bond but making it successful and then CONTINUE that success. Then there was MGM under a different management that didn't want the films to take risks. That's why I think the Brosnan era pulls its punches so many times throughout, especially TWINE. They really wanna push further into the kind of films that the Dalton era was striving for, but they also had to be commercial and not turn off so many audiences in the process. It was weird time. To this day they still say they approach the next Bond film as if it will be the last, I think because LTK's performance really hit EON that hard.
It wasn't until Sony partnered up and that they had an ally in Amy Pascal that they were able to take more chances with Bond, and they did. In the 90s, a choice like Daniel Craig probably would have never happened. It's only because Pascal gave them full support for it that they were able to move forward. And it paid off, giving them leeway to take even more chances, for better or worse.
There's a lot of Bond fans that wish we could go back to the style of films from 1962-1985 where it was more strictly formulaic, no personal stories, no experimenting with the traditions, etc. I'm really glad we got the Craig films. Whether good or bad, they took some chances and brought out some interesting discussions among fans on what Bond film can do. I don't think I'd be as engaged as a fan if all we got were movies like TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
... why did he report today, after the birth of Craig’s daughter, that filming for 25 would start in December... with Boyle directing???
What?? Are you serious?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6120477/Rachel-Weisz-gives-birth-48-Actress-husband-Daniel-Craig-welcome-baby-girl.html
Very lazy indeed.
This is probably correct.
I think what happened with Boyle is going to make it much harder for EON to hire big name directors.
If EON couldn't manage to do everything necessary to keep on board one of the most respected directors ever to be associated with Bond then that will surely set alarm bells going for anyone else they approach.
I personally wouldn't mind if EON returned to the journeyman type directors of yesteryear but given that this doesnt seem to be what they want, recent events can only really be seen as very bad for EON and it's ambitions for the franchise.
A side note but if the rumours about Boyle wanting less action and a smaller budget are true, surely this was clear to EON from the start of Boyles involvement and they should have been more willing to embrace his vision. A lot of us on here would have welcomed this approach. Sort of FYEO after MR. One of the problems with recent Bond films has been EON shoe-horning in pointless action sequences that don't connect with the plot. Boyle is 100% focused on story and plot and anything not integral to his storytelling is jettisoned.
It's a sad situation. We've almost certainly lost a unique smaller scale and more narrative driven Bond film - something I'd been wishing for for a long time.
If the article had lead with that, then it would have been a bit strange. But, if Baz comes out with an article next week saying everything is on track, will he be trustworthy again?
By the time they’d read through it they’d have passed away from natural causes anyway.
Btw, Gustav_Graves and Germanlady are members I truly miss. I do not miss the pompousness and arrogance of the Colonel at all.
And these were my final words on the Colonel.
That's a very good point, and I do agree that it's generally true for big name directors but I think Nolan is an exception. Giving Boyle a lot of creative freedom was always a risky move by EON, because he has never directed a truly big budget movie before (his biggest movie yet is The Beach), and he has never done anything like a Bond movie.
Nolan would probably want even more creative freedom than Boyle would have gotten, but it would be far less risky to give him that freedom. He has directed several big budget spectacles that turned out to be huge crowd-pleasers. Also, it's pretty likely Nolan would deliver a script EON would completely be happy with, as he (unlike Hodge) has a lot of experience wrtining the kind of movies Bond movies are.
I'm sure you're right about Nolan's experience.
But would EON be willing to relinquish control to the extend Nolan would probably expect/require. And would they be able to come to a working agreement that avoided more 'creative differences' on B26?
If Nolan is used to writing, producing and directing then it seems highly unlikely to me (under current arrangements) that we would be willing or able to work with EON.
Variety said it felt like a 'glorified TV movie with a better cast'.
Ouch.
I guess the decision to make him a producer has kind of backfired. I thought he was just the hired actor but now he chooses the director and can fire the writer? Meh, whatever. Seems pretty clear Craig and Boyle didn't get on. Clash of personalties or ideas.
Reading between the lines, Baz Bamgboye item many be suggesting any new director will have to watch their mouth and not speak out. Just follow orders. I'm wondering if this is a PR blunder for Eon and MGM? There may be many directors reluctant to direct Bond 25 for fear of Craig and Babs ordering them about! Perhaps.
I think Craig has too much power. Fair enough, if Babs and MG give him the power he's not going to say no. Well, I suppose he could but if he's a co-producer then he's got a huge amount of power and if the power isn't directed in a productive way it can backfire - Boyle/Hodge's leaving the film.
In my view the best thing they could have done is started with a fresh actor and a new lighter more fun approach. Mission Impossible films are beginning to look like masterpieces in the context of what has been happening with Bond recently.
Maybe it really is time to close the chapter on James Bond as These latest films really don’t have a lot in common with their forebears. The problem is that if you base everything on current affairs then the story will seem quite ordinary. If you base the story on a fantasy it can become more timeless and we have lost the surprise factor in the latest films along with a lot of the style and surprise that the earlier films had.