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’m not sure how he’s devoting his time, but I imagine he’d have to be bouncing from editing suite on the Beatles film, and popping back to his B25 offices.
If there was ever a template best suited for proficient journeymen, Bond is it.
The world is there, the iconic character is right there. The one thing you need to spend time and money on is the script.
For Bond, the best type of director is a hired hand. I feel Mendes was a poor fit and I fear Boyle will deliver a real mixed bag.
That’s the thing - only the likes of Glen and Campbell have the humility to serve the best interests of the film itself, as opposed to ticking off some career check list and imposing their own “vision” or brand on a world that absolutely does not need it.
That’s my take anyway.
That's my fear too. But, I have never seen a Boyle film before, so I can't comment on him and what he does. The Mendes films… well - let's just say they don't have the same rewatchability factor as the "journeymen efforts", IMO.
In addition, he had the task of introducing a new Bond who was a novice to the industry.
John Glen, I feel grew as a director over the course of his five films. They are certainly five of the most watched Bonds for me.
Honestly, I prefer Hunt and Glen's work over Forster and Mendes when I'm in the mood for a Bond film.
Either way, we're still hip deep in this period where Eon prefers A list Oscar bait directors and the era where the Bonds are leisurely released on an occasional schedule.
Absolutely @BT3366. If one wants to be precise about Connery’s loss of physicality, he was already enjoying the excesses of his wealth by the time of YOLT, where a slightly more puffy-faced and visible paunch is there to be seen in his ninja outfit. As you point out, there might have been a small minority that noticed Connery being in less physical shape than in the early 60’s by the time of DAF, but it didn’t put off people from going to see the movie. I don’t recall anyone turning it into an issue during the 70’s even when Moore took over. Most just saw Connery as perhaps a little more bulkier, but still giving a very assured performance.
It was Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger (possibly even Christopher Reeve in the late 70’s) that started the big muscles craze in modern movies that set the benchmark for today’s audiences. Of course the 50’s movies had their musclemen actors, such as Victor Mature and Burt Lancaster to name but a few, but they had been mostly largely forgotten by younger audiences by the 70’s.
He does do a hell of a lot more than Craig does
Yep. That was im just here for the check Connery
Yes, I do agree with that. I just have so many questions (as do others) that I can’t wait to be answered.
*raises hand*
Cruise is the exception. Did Brosnan leap from Verzasca Dam, or Rog fling himself off Asgard? Connery rarely fought. This notion that Craig should be doing what Cruise is doing is silly. He’s an actor, not a stuntman.
Wonder what type of Craig we get in Bond 25!
1) It could look very cool. Bond fighting inside the little pods or hanging from outside! The wheel is turning and Bond clings on for dear life.
2) If MI 7 gets made, who knows, Cruise and his stunt team could use the London Eye. I'd rather Bond uses it first.
It could be featured in the opening pre-credit scene. Bond meets up with someone inside the pod. A helicopter or boat or gunmen on the street open fire and crazy stuff happens. You could create a CGI or scaled model of the wheel for some of the more outrageous action moments - explosions etc. I'm assuming the local council, Lambeth, would permit limited use of the wheel but the rest could be done with CGI or whatever the production crew can think up!
Yep! :))
But again, @fanbond123 has a point that London Eye could be a good location.
It would have that "old school, Moonraker" feel
London needs a break from everything but M's orders to Bond outlining his mission at the start of the film.
Bring it back in B26 or later,for a major action scene.
The London Eye isn't going anywhere.
Craig has taken it too far. He looks like a bodybuilder and partly as a result of his bulk his suits don’t hang well.
Bond is not supposed to look like Arnie. Bizarre that the series went that way just when the old action stars were falling out of favour
I must admit when I first saw CR I was surprised to see how musclebound he was,and thinking to myself 'that's not Bond,he was never like that'.
Craig should have stayed the way he was when they introduced him on the Thames - just probably some exercise to tone-up.
It makes much more sense than the previous 3 actors who really didn't have any physical attributes to make you imagine they could do all the incredible physical things they did, particularly Moore.
And the reason is they had to find a way to make up for Craig's lack of handsome looks, by taking focus away from the face.
Coming from a straight man I can tell you he’s definitely not lacking in the handsome department.
Then again I guess looks are subjective.
Handsome for an average guy, yes. James Bond level handsome, nowhere close.
I value your opinion, but I still beg to differ!