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-- with a polish--...
New writers writers without P & W and a action director who isn't artsy drama is what James Bond drastically needs at this point! For sure by the time the next 007 this NEEDS to happen! Come on Barbara Broccoli, your father would be ashamed of you. He didn't keep Richard Maibaum for so many films in a row. How have P & W earned this achievement?! Sorry, enough rambling.
And who do you want
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/8/21/17765602/danny-boyle-leaves-bond-25-james-bond-franchise-future
He's more than up to a New Bond.
Get him or Forster....
I'm sorry but new blood is what James Bond truly needs. Marc Forster only did it because he liked Casino Royale. His passion wasn't there to begin with. Not fully blaming him or anyone really, the writers strike and the unexpected high quality of CR really made the journey a tough mountain for him to climb.
My first thought was they all need to go, enough, EON sell, Craig retire...
If they go back to their former short list of directors I can live with any of them, but it’s awfully awkward to board this big a ship and be known as the second choice. Also, yeah I could take Campbell or Forster or their short list, but NOT Mendes... the only thing that made my stomach turn more then when I first read this news was many of you just invoking his name. I will slash my wrists if Mendes gets named. Thank you @Tuck91 for the good news.
Everything will be ok as long as it turns out as a good bond film
And yet...your screen name is...?
You’ve got the right idea. They will never go back to Forster which is a shame because he could churn out a pretty good bond film that could be liked perhaps more universally than QOS with a finsihed script and editing time.
Campbell could possibly return with the next bond actor but I wouldn’t bet on it.
I think the producers need to pack up and end the franchise. They don’t know what they’re doing and quite frankly, this latest stunt of theirs is egregious. I wouldn’t mind a reboot set in the olden days with stories closely following the Fleming novels with maybe some more intense action sprinkled it but at the end of the day I think that’s the way of the future for this franchise.
I’m happy to say that I’ll just forget spectre and pretend the series ended with skyfall with bond proving he can survive forever and then going off on many missions.
The truth is that these idiots can’t handle bond forever though.
It feels like climbing up half a mountain and then falling off and being told to start again.
Maybe I don’t want to
Yeah that fact that this guy isn’t thrilled by the prospect of getting one more guaranteed fantastic bond film is beyond me.
Kind of like Sir Roger falling off that cliff in for your eyes only did he quit no he kept going that's we need to do just keep going
Here is what I wrote: "Campbell's great work after CR: tell me. I'll wait. I mean, CR was twelve years ago. So breakdown the brilliant directing career of Martin Campbell, 2006-2018."
So the issue is that MC hasn't done much since CR. That said...
CR is solidly in my Top 5. But tbh it's a great film in spite of Campbell and not because of him. I don't have the time to break down the film, scene by scene, and point out just how amateurish much of Campbell's work was on that film. It's not worth anyone's time. There are terrific moments, for sure. The choice to use B&W to open the film was brilliant. But there are many moments in the film that you would likely show first-year films students as what NOT to do.
Wah
Bloody hell.
Now I’m gonna need a breakdown because those are some serious accusations
EON most likely has Craig locked into a contract.
Wah
Bloody hell.
Now I’m gonna need a breakdown because those are some serious accusations
Maybe he’ll slash his wrists instead of waiting an extra year
I certainly think Daniel will be in Bond 25. We have people here who seem to think everything is now lost/changed/gone. I believe we will have a decent director named soon, and probably with a slightly changed/polished script as Peter suggested. I am not panicking or deeply distubed.
I am disappointed because I liked the idea of Boyle directing a Bond film. This is part of show biz, movie biz ... I trust they will handle it without making a huge screw up. I am not losing sleep over this.
Bye for now, but I'll check back for news of course from time to time.
Irrespective, I still think they will need a reasonably well known name to helm this, after the hoopla caused by Boyle's initial announcement and now his untimely departure. A newbie or someone less high profile won't look so good, as they were relying on Boyle for quite a bit of the marketing publicity and hype.
Hitting that much ballyhooed "high" will depend on far more than the script. The direction and casting will be critical. So I'm quite curious to see who they finally go with. The guy (or gal) will have to be experienced enough to work under a reasonably tight timeline on what is a relatively large production - presumably with limited input to change direction at this stage.
It's quite amazing how tight lipped everything has been, especially since people at Universal and Annapurna are probably privy to details. One would expect leaks.
1. Entire embassy sequence. The pull back from the embassy sign (with one of Arnold's worst pieces playing). The somersault, with the close up. The constant closeups of actor's faces, when they are 100% unnecessary. Even a close-up of a CC camera, button, and a siren. The set design inside the embassy is something out of an 80s MacGyver episode. And then there's the embarrassing exterior shot which, we can all tell, is really a sound stage with painted trees in the bg.
2. The Ford car commercial in the Bahamas. :22-:27. Just dreadful.
3. Prague is NOT Miami.
4. The overly-long Miami airport sequence with, again, more dumb closeups (who films a close up of Bond like this? 4:44-4:46).
5. Even worse, who the hell films a close-up of Bond like this????
6. Speaking of the poisoning, was having Bond spun around by a moving car, outside the casino, a good move? No. It was 100% cliche.
Now, is this being nitpicky? Perhaps. But if I am critiquing a director's work, I have to be. Directors have choices. And what to shoot is meant to give the audience information. Too often, MC informs us of the meaningless and at times when what we are seeing is supposed to be meaningful, he undermines it with blocking and close-ups more suitable for cheesy TV.
CR overcomes these flaws in other ways. DC is brilliant. The script is great. The rest of Arnold's score, aside from what's mentioned above, is good. And MC has some moments: the pull back from Bond and Vesper in the shower is the best scene in the film and one of the best in the Craig era. But overall, MC isn't in Forster or Mendes's class.
So when fans clamor for Campbell's return, I am miffed.
@FoxRox I agree we need to see first before just panicking and running around like the world is ending
@bondjames im supprised too universal and Annapurna must not be to worried