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
And keep holding onto that "feeling"... Right now Hollywood and producers are more concerned about these strikes... And even more worried about the aftermath... There are going to be all kinds of delays and hold-ups and cancellations and projects that will never see the light of day.
Big tent pole films have started to book dates for their next releases... EoN hasn't... So keep clutching your "feeling"...
@Mendes4Lyfe :
To get Nolan to direct a project that isn’t one of his original projects, he will have to have immense control, but more importantly, if he is indeed interested in a project that didn’t first originate with he and his wife/producing partner, then a very hefty pay-or-play deal will have to be fronted to him in escrow where they’d need to negotiate that he’s attached to the project for x number of years!! (And is Nolan going to sit about and wait x number of years? , and; if he negotiates that he can still slip in another project of his own, during this wait time, then the potential B26 film would have to wait another eighteen-to-twenty-four months for him to complete his picture !!!)
If this is to happen, EoN better open a shell company for B26 now (where all money invested, spent, and made will run through here for clean accounting), and start negotiating, or this scenario of yours is as likely, or not as likely, as you becoming the next director, Mendes, 😂.
All things are possible.
Yeah that’s sounds amazing, and I’d be the first person in line to see it, but is that what EON would want? Would they want to cast a man in his early 40’s and just keep him around for 3 films coming off of the longest tenure an actor had in the part? I don’t think so, but like you said, anything is possible.
That focus could represent an unexpected and long-awaited control of their franchise. After the interruptions they experienced for the QOS and writers' strike, studio changeovers and financing affecting SF and SP, and the pandemic extending the release of NTTD.
So an actor in his 40s across 2027, 2029, 2031. And they could still keep him on for more as done in the past.
There doesn't seem to be any sign of a B26 company started that I can see just yet, although there are often a few different entries for the same people
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/S-fn_wwzDoscAiw7KWl-vIwbtD4/appointments
I think audiences will be in for a Nolan Bond film regardless of its tone, I’d be surprised if the next films didn’t remain relatively dark, and I’d be FLOORED if EON didn’t at least make an attempt to get Nolan on board. I do agree with a lot of your sentiments, though.
The Craig films (sometimes intentionally, sometimes circumstantially) were very influenced by Nolan, and with Bond’s fingerprints all over The Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception, and Tenet, the aggregate effect feels like I’ve already seen the Nolan Bond movie.
He may very well be my favourite filmmaker of all time, but at this point he’d need to be bringing something that’s a radical departure from his own work to the table to excite me, and given that, I don’t see the point of bringing him on. I am all for bringing in another auteur of a similar vein to help reinvigorate the next iteration. I’d keep a close eye on Denis Villeneuve going forward, my gut tells me it’ll be him if not Nolan.
My biggest issue with the Craig era post-Skyfall is that a lot of the “bold” moves felt superficial. When they went dark, it was a bit moody, sure but it felt safe and not that dark. When they got emotional it was sparingly and didn’t really pack much punch. When they went a little looser it wasn’t that fun or humorous. It was all a bit watered down and half-hearted and HEAVILY leaned on the strength of Craig’s performance and strong technical filmmaking.
Craig’s films redefined the character for a generation and opened up some interesting ideas of what the franchise can be, but the producers have barely scratched the surface of its potential, in my opinion.
Many people liked Casino Royale, because it diverged from the expectations, it broke from the formula, the same for Skyfall.
The Craig Era had been experimental to do such unusual things that we all know, impossible to happen in the Bond world.
Some people liked the Craig Era, for the sake of doing something new, something that's never been done in the Bond films before.
About the lighthearted Bond, as @Mendes4Lyfe have said:
It's been played already before, many times in fact, we've seen that Light-heartedness before, and people thinking it wouldn't work is because we've seen how it went, the Moore Era films notwithstanding, and there's the Brosnan Era.
The grittiness of the Craig Era was something that's not seen, or the groundedness of it, it's more grounded than the Dalton Era that's still contained some fantastical elements in them, meanwhile the Craig Era had none of those and was mostly focused on character driven stories, which what made it worked.
Long before Craig, we haven't explored Bond's character deeply yet, he's mostly as a character without something inside of him, but the Craig Era explored it, and that's made it worked.
And it's in whether we liked it or not.
That's why what I'm telling here all the time, is for them to try something new.
Okay that's enough, we've seen a gritty Bond already, we've seen a drama/sentimental Bond already, we've seen lighthearted Bond already.
Okay try something new, what's available in the store that's never been seen before? Okay why not try that for the new era?
Anyway, these things are rarely straightforward. It's not just a case where Craig's films were always 'dark and gritty', nor that all of Brosnan and Moore's films were lighthearted but devoid of character. There are shades when it comes to Bond films.
And having him sharply dressed is paramount, as well as having some sexuality distilled from the leading ladies. And sex. One must have sex. This Nolanesque, Cruisesque (and I like them both) tendency for frigid, sexless men and victorianesque prudes must go. I welcome Eva Green's cleavage, Andress's bikini, Xenia's over the top sexual paraphilia of death and her killer tighs, and Halle Berry's fig cutting innuendos, ..., over Hayley Atwell's buttoned up blouse and Rebecca Ferguson amicable hugs any day of the week.
Cancel me for saying this, for all I care, but Bond was created with sex on Fleming's mind, and with that prerogative. Sex, violence and exoticism. Take that away and you're left with Ethan Hunt. And I like Hunt, but he has no layers, no interest as a character besides his devotion to his friends, which is no different from that Fast and Furious awful family franchise. I'll say this again. Make Bond films with no shame for what they are. Thankfully, so far, EON has done so, even with some poor choices along the way.
So, fingers crossed.
I can just see them in their creative meetings with their partners in finance and distribution: BB’s face was likely bright red, and MGW wore a bag over his head. They’re ashamed of this 60-plus year legacy. In fact, ashamed is too weak. They must hate this character and the history of the series, no? I mean, how else can you explain this rubbish they’re forcing down our throats…
BB and MGW are just plain evil.
Thank you, Mendes, for your tremendous insight and intuition. You’re always so on point!
😂 🙄 🤡
Lovely post. I couldn't agree more. Especially this point:
"This Nolanesque, Cruisesque (and I like them both) tendency for frigid, sexless men and victorianesque prudes must go."
Bond films are about sex and danger. Nolan and Cruise have something else on their minds: puzzle-designing for the former, stunt-razzle-dazzle and a irrepressible showmanship (perhaps masking something else) for the latter.
Neither one can hold a candle to Bond. It's a unique cocktail with which Fleming, Connery, and Eon set the bar in the '60s.
But when it comes to the treatment of the female characters, Hunt did it better, again, it's not a dark light against Bond, it's his nature, that's his world and that's not Ethan Hunt, but for me, it's just a matter of personal preference, women in MI films felt like real people, and treated better, they've been given agencies and importance to the plot and Ethan Hunt himself, they're not sex objects like the Bond Girls.
Sure I would take them over the likes of Christmas Jones, Mary Goodnight, and Stacey Sutton even Tiffany Case.
But again, they're different, even down to the plots and all, they're separate.
So, for me, Bond and Hunt aren't comparable.
There are some things I liked about Bond that Hunt didn't have, but there's some things that I liked about Hunt that Bond didn't have.
I throughly enjoyed the new Mission Impossible, but I hope EON watch it and see why we need the Bond series to have sex appeal. MI DR 1 felt very awkward around character relationships and characters being sexy in general
Yeah I'd like to see female characters more like Ilsa etc. in Bond. They got closer with NTTD, and I liked Madeline actually- she was strong but that doesn't mean she's a badass with martial arts skills (as moviemakers often confuse for being a 'strong woman'), because she's a psychologist! :) Nomi was mostly good, but just superfluous to the film.
I think NTTD showed that you can have women not treated as sex objects and for the character of Bond to not be undermined. That's not to say the film can't be sexy (another good reason not to get Nolan in).
I have no desire to see Bond bed three women/film, but sex is an integral part of his character. My own theories are that, on the surface, he's a red-blooded hedonist (drinking, gambling, fine dining (while on assignment), beautiful cars and driving them hard, sex, and, at one, time smoking). But scratch the surface and he's indulging these pleasures because he is very cognizant that his life could end with his next mission.
And I do find it sexier to see Bond with a Lucia Sciarra, a Madeleine Swann (in NTTD, where she was given more to do than just pout and glare at Bond), a Vesper, an Octopussy, a Sylvia Trench (who wants to use Bond as much as he wants her), a Tatiana, and, of course, a Tracy... Real characters with layers, with secrets, with their own desires, as opposed to cartoon "strong women" like Christmas and Jinx...
The only time I thought Nolan had a decent female character was in Inception, but I attribute that to Marion Cotillard, who is an unparalleled (and I'd say, effortlessly sexy) actor who raised even DiCaprio's game. Of course she was a projection/dream and not a real character.
I appreciate that he's an accomplished British director, and that the nationality of the director is important to many, but Nolan is not right for Bond.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. His films to date, even his so-called “Bondian” ones, just aren’t … Bond.