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
Sigh. Denis Villeneve...what could have been.
That said, I am getting keyed up about CJF.
I wouldn't be against it.
I'd still say that EON should be asking very hard questions of Cary if he's coming back with a 2 and a half hour film next year. Just over 2 hrs is probably as long as any Bond film should be. Preferably just under I think. Make the director work harder to tell the story efficiently (assuming there's a story worth telling - big if) and perhaps save some cash in the process. The productions have become too bloated all round - stodgy dialogue, overlong, too expensive.
To be fair, people on these boards were saying Shatterhand could be the title of Bond 25 even before SPECTRE was released.
Quite by the way I never introduced myself My Name is Bond, James Bond
These are two of the most memorable entries, and yet they clock in just around the two hour mark. I was surprised actually, because I thought they were longer, given how good they are.
It's all a question of removing the padding and keeping it tight without losing the essence . Perhaps that's what keeps these films so rewatchable for me, I'm not sure. They are very well paced for their time.
Jimmy Kimmel asked Rami Malek about Bond 25.
In my opinion, that has more or less always been one of the key elements of the Bonds: they move. Even the majority of Fleming's books reads like a speeding bullet.
I always present the likes of OHMSS and CR as clear examples myself. They run a bit longer than the average Bond film, but my goodness do they take us places! By the time Craig speaks the familiar line and Arnold drops the familiar notes, it feels like I've travelled half the world, actually spent enough time everywhere to taste the local flavours and yet I was never bored. In fact, my only regret is that it’s all over. Despite the running length, the film feels both epic and concise at the same time. I’m feeling neither dissatisfied nor exhausted.
While many a Bond film loses its vigour right before the third act, the pacing remains strong. It’s perhaps the single most constant quality of all the films.
That is my guess too one wonders if they are going to use Blofield alias as its own character I wouldn’t mind Rami Malik as Dr Gutham Von Shatterhand
SP is often brought up as an example of a film that's too long, but I personally don't feel that way. I don't like the film, but I think the length is suitable for what they have to convey (it arguably should have been two films). It doesn't feel like 2 hrs and 40 minutes to me.
The only one that I find lags a bit is CR. Right after Le Chiffre is killed I lose interest on rewatches (first time around it was ok because I didn't know how it would play out).
Certainly seems he has been in talks. Also does anyone else think that, when Jimmy asks Rami if he can share what he had told him, it's about Bond 25?
That was my first thought.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the talkshow host usually discuss with the guest(s) what they can and can't talk about beforehand? If Rami Malek wanted to avoid talking Bond, couldn't he just say that to Kimmel before the show? Him being coy about his involvement when asked about it – and at the same time being rather obvious in that he's been approached, seems to me a way of confirming his involvement without really saying so.
Will be very surprised to see someone else than Malek presented as the villain at the press conference.
That would be sort of interesting. I'm already imagining the possibilities. "THE DEATH COLLECTOR: James Bond investigates Japanese-based tech mogul Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who had gained power through blackmail and deceit. There are murmurs that Dr. Shatterhand owns an island close to Japan that helps suicidal people die."
I'm just not logistically sure how it could work. It would take one of two extreme solutions. They'd either have to weight all Malek's work toward the back end of the B25 schedule (potentially reasonable, if his villain doesn't have an absolute ton of screentime) or the Mr. Robot shoot would need to be delayed entirely, which seems less likely.
Without knowing the role, it's hard to say exactly how appropriate he'd be -- but just off type, talent and timing, I personally think he's a perfect choice for a Bond villain.
Yes, they generally do a pre-interview going over what can/can't be discussed, and work out which stories/anecdotes the guest(s) will tell.
But obviously, the host can have an agenda, or get carried away in the moment if they're majorly fanning over a guest.
Norton, Kimmel and Colbert generally bring up Bond with their guests, so there may be some sort of agreement in place.
Interestingly, Kimmel seems to think that Malek’s casting is a done deal by his response. I’m unsure if that is entirely the case yet. Though I suspect he can do it. The ‘Bond
villain’ role is a supporting part and could film around his Mr. Robot schedule.
Plus, anyone who watches the show will know that while his character is the ‘lead’ of the show, the series has become more ensemble in nature with all the characters getting significant airtime (in fact, his character is often not the focal point of an episode – the recent ten episode third season had two full episodes with either no Malek or barely any).
Only cause I find a lot of my posts get ignored so I'm trying a new thing haha :D
Does DC normally wear TF outside of Bond?