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
Our Friends in the North (TV Mini-Series) 1996, he was brilliant in a mini series 21 years ago ?
I wouldn't say DC is a brilliant actor especially after his acting in Spectre.
Tom hardy etc are brilliant actors.
Does anyone else think DC is a brilliant actor?
Craig is about as good as an actor as Steve McQueen was. I think that basically sums it up.
I didn't see him in Othello. Did you?
BTW it's acting Chops, not Shops.
Don't get upset if i or anyone doesn't like DC's acting.
It's just a difference of opinion.
Interesting.
"Only if I can reinvent the franchise", Nolan has said. And we know what that means: Lots of time-shifting, trying to play with our minds.
Love Zimmers music, which I think would fit perfectly (lots of Newman's cues were Zimmeresque), but since I'm probably the only one in the world who didn't praise 'Inception', 'Interstellar' and 'Dunkirk' I'm on the fence about Nolan. Actually, I'd rather have Ridley Scott on board.
If Babs is obsessed with Dan and may be she is, I think that's understandable. She held out for him as Bond and he's proved a huge success critically and commercially. People forget that SP got rave reviews in many places and did very respectable box office. Why wouldn't she want him to do another?
Well I don't particualrly rate Depp either.
Surely what is ridiculous is you continuing to blame everything but Daniel Craig for all his non Bond film projects being either commerical or critical failures, or both.
Success on stage is slightly different. Especially when the fact you're Bond helps bring in huge fan audiences. Should I remind you that Timothy Dalton was/is considered a great stage actor who audiences flocked to see back in the day. Will that suddenly convince you that he's a huge screen actor who can pack them in at the box office?
Your inability to accept the slightest criticism of Craig is absurd. Even when faced with the clear facts of his non Bond cinematic underperformance. I'm not doing a hatchet job on him. He's a decent a actor. A very good Bond. I like him. But the fact his career outside Bond has hardly caught fire is of no surprise to me at all.
Ridley Scott back in the 80s would have been amazing. May be even now.
An old post, but I just wanted to say I agree with this.
Highlights for me during his Bond years: CR, QOS, DEFIANCE, TINTIN, TGWTDT, SF (yes, I include his 007 films, since it's a part of his body of work).
With LL, as shown in the trailers, and the one clip that's been released, DC's going to steal the show on this one. And is it coincidence, that the one clip that they've decided to show, stars DC, with AD and CT being the co-stars (even though the Logan brothers are the leads in this ensemble; I think the producers know that they've got something special in DC's performance)?
Once DC became Bond, he himself has stated, that he felt pressure to do certain films; and with this new found fame, you have to understand, he was probably thrown every script under the sun.
He's been in clunkers, as every actor has-- that's not a measure of his success.
Tom Hardy, who I also like, has been in terrible films as well. For every MAD MAX, he has LEGEND (he was great, the story-telling and final execution was horrible), and CHILD 44 (just all round terrible, including Hardy's performance).
Measure the man by his body of work. DC is a great talent in film, TV and stage.
Is this why you love DC Germanlady? :)
There are upsides with the having a Nolan-Bond to, I guess. Several friends of mine see it almost as an event when there's a new Nolan-film being released, and they are all regular moviegoers. Nolan is sure to bring audiences to the cinema - perhaps even those who wouldn't necessarily go to a Bond film.
My own "problem" with Nolan - and the films I've seen, is that they feel (and are!) very long. He takes his time with the plot, slowly building everything up to the climax. Not that they necessarily become boring, but it almost becomes a chore to complete it. This it not what you'd want with Bond. A Bond-film should be fun and entertaining, and at the same time effective enough to be finished around the two-hour mark. If Nolan can't do that, I fear we'll get a Batman/Bond hybrid - without the batsuit.
Then again, he could also bring some of his big name actors and actresses to the cast. Would love to see Marion Cotillard or Gary Oldman in a Bond film.
With this in mind, I'm divided if I'd like to see Nolan direct Bond. There are elements to his film that I like, and others that I don't. Much of the Nolan discussion feels comparable to the one of Nicolas Winding Refn, with the former being a more bankable name of the two. Both have an appreciation for Bond, and they both seem to have an idea to what they would like to do with the franchise - which is both a bit scary and intriguing at the same time.
Is Nolan what is needed for Bond, now or past Craig? I don't have an opinion, really. I just hope they bring in a director who can deliver both in quality and money. That list of directors can't be too long, can it?
https://www.quora.com/Should-the-next-Bond-character-by-played-by-a-female-or-male/answer/Jennifer-Quail?srid=EYpF
I think plenty of us will agree that, however we may feel about each film individually, the Craig era has lacked a clear direction, a problem that is made more significant with the heavy continuity of the Bond films today. Why is that the case? Most certainly, one of the reasons is that the producers aren't quite sure where to take the films, but we must also keep in mind that, because they have made an effort to search for more renowned, critically acclaimed filmmakers, they have probably taken a step back to give these directors more creative room. This wasn't the case back in the day. While people like Terence Young, Guy Hamilton and Lewis Gilbert may have had a strong hand in shaping the Bond films, Broccoli and Saltzman always kept a close eye on things. With the older films, there was a stable creative team and a consistency between each entry, without each film being a carbon copy of each other. If people like Forster, Mendes and eventually Nolan continue to helm Bond films, I fear the producers will continue to "bungle in the dark", and to be more passive than they should. These filmmakers are too famous for the Bond movies. Unlike the directors of yesteryear, these guys come with baggage. They "have to be needed", they have to have their whims catered to. If the producers appease Mendes by exploring Bond's family history, who says they won't appease Nolan, or anybody else with whatever ideas they may have? These ideas may not be grossly inappropriate, but they may not be the right ones in the long run. That's my worry. Perhaps Nolan could make a splendid Bond film, one that sets the tone for a new era of Bond, but if he isn't going to be willing or able to stay with the series in the long run, what is going to happen? If Nolan is followed by more big time filmmakers, the direction set by Nolan will be jeopardized by these other directors and their creative demands. If Nolan is followed by more anonymous directors, the new films might feel like a pale imitation of his film.
My impression is that it is difficult to make the combination of a long running franchise and big time directors work successfully. Bond films aside, the Mission: Impossible films started with it, but have drifted away in recent years. The Alien films of yesteryear preferred up-and-coming filmmakers. It's not impossible to do otherwise, but it's certainly difficult. There is a reason Broccoli didn't hire Spielberg back in the day.
I don't want to get too serious or portentous, though. The Bond films today are fine. As explained above, they can clearly be much better, but they are fine. It's not like the whole machinery is falling apart; Bond will survive. I'm not sure what new things Nolan could bring to a Bond film, especially after Skyfall, but if he directs a Bond movie, I'll watch it with a fair share of interest.
@mattjoes An excellent post! As I've said before, the directors are not the stars in Bond, Bond is. He's not their toy or their property to shape to their own creative vision. I think any good Bond director should have this mindset; "I'm just a professional doing a job."
That's how you get TND, TWINE and QOS, instead of Skyall.
This is what put me off Nolan to begin with. Does he know how to make good films that are around 2 hrs? Well, I think Dunkirk might represent a change of gears in his career. There are several things about Dunkirk that don't fit with his other films, and I know feel extremely confident that Nolan would have the ability to produce something a little slimmer than what he is known for (and a little less exposition, theme heavy) if he did a Bond film.
Nolan is a far more versatile director than Mendes, I believe he has a far greater ability to adapt his box of tricks.
To be fair TWINE is brilliant and Apted had a lot of creative input. Also I think QoS is an example of the director having too much control. It was clear that Forster didn't care about making a Bond film (he's basically said as much in interviews) and EON didn't do anything to reign him in.
I think there has to be a healthy balance. Directors should put their own spin on things because that makes the films more exciting to watch but there's also certain rules they have to play by and EON should keep an eye on things to make sure they don't get out of hand. Nolan is a fan though so I have a feeling he'd fully embrace these rules anyway (although Mendes is apparently a fan too yet he can't do a simple gunbarrel so who knows).
Was going to see it in IMAX in a few weeks when the missus is away and the initial rush has died down a bit.
But then all of a sudden she announces she wants to go and see it and this weekend was the only one viable so obviously all that was left was a bog standard screen (next to some moronic Poles who spent half the film talking and half drinking beer and noisily munching popcorn - you might think given what happened to Poland in the war they might have a slight sense of reverence to such a story?).
Anyway I digress from the main point which is - see it in IMAX at all costs. Preferably at a late night screening at the end of its run when there is no one else in the cinema.
Hopefully they won't make the same mistake of Cubby when he told Spielberg he wasn't ready and then got Glen to ape Raiders rather terribly in OP.
Dunkirk was just incredible, I think Nolan raised the bar in blockbuster film making with The Dark Knight and it's reverberations have been felt ever since, you can't deny it.
With Dunkirk he's done it again, never seen a big budget picture that moved me and thrilled me without trying to manipulate like it, puts that awful dross by Cameron into perspective.
I have to agree with @Mendes4Lyfe Nolan is a much more diverse film maker than Mendes, even his detractors have to admit he never delivers the same product over and over again.
Like I said Cubby denied us of the Beard in his blockbuster prime and then he delivered the outright masterpiece that is Raiders of the Lost Ark, no Bond has set pieces as thrilling and inventive and also paced to perfection.
Nolan is destined for Bond and giving him the keys to the castle to do it would not be a mistake. I think Mendes was a fan but not like Nolan is of Bond or understands it like Chris does.
He's undoubted student film and he's not a huge personality as a person quite reserved but inside I think he's chomping at the bit to take a crack at it.
If he does get denied he might be inclined to take a crack at his own take on the genre and well and truly put the series to shame of late, he can start it again with a new cast and then let other directors take the baton.
In 2015, Craig said that if he played Bond again “it would be for the money.”
Why Grumpy Daniel Craig Shouldn’t Return as James Bond
http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-grumpy-daniel-craig-shouldnt-return-as-james-bond
Interesting. War films isn't really my thing, so I doubt I'll check it out - but what elements of Dunkirk are different from his other films?
As yourself, i do believe he's a more versatile director that Mendes; I didn't care too much with Mendes' action sequences, for example. Not that Nolan is my favourite in that department either, but he has his moments.
Very good points. Let's learn from one of Cubby's biggest mistakes and embrace Nolan rather let him go off and make another Raiders that shows the series up.
http://collider.com/friday-box-office-dunkirk/
To be fair, we have no idea how far along they are with Bond 25 right now. It's possible he hasn't been approached yet, but he could still direct. If Bond 25 isn't coming out in 2018, there's really no limit to when it could come out. I think maybe 2020.
Either way, I feel EON would have nipped these Nolan rumours in the bud if it wasn't a possibility. How much inferior does a Craig Delevingne team up sound in comparison to a complete reimagining from one the premier filmmakers of our age?
It something i consider for a whyle, like i was very happy that Lindy Hemming not return after CR.
And iam happy with Dennis Gasner as production designer.
And Gary Powell should be replaced by Greg Powell who did some stunts on Twine and Skyfall, mabey can take over. He work as stuntcoordinatior too. Mission Impossible, Harry Potter movies, Safe House, Unlocked, The Hitmans Bodyguard, The Foreigner.
http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0694128/filmotype/stunts?ref_=m_nmfm_1