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
That just means Spielberg is being polite. You don't butt in and say you want to direct the next one when there's an established director already potentially set up to helm B25.
I think if EON really wanted Spielberg they could still get him, but I don't think EON do want him.
Spielberg's comments contradict what Babs said recently. She said Spielberg was still practically unknown or unproven or something when Cubby rejected him, but after Jaws that was hardly the case.
What a shame they didn't approach Spielberg in the 90s. It made have saved the whole Brosnan era.
Ron Howard would be interesting. RUSH is a little bit like a Bond film in many respects. And Ron likes to tell a proper story, which is something that has bean missing from Bond for a long time.
I think Ken Branagh as well would be worth a shot.
I thought he handled that perfectly. Not saying I want Bond to be like Thor, just that I think Brannagh knows how to take a different and appropriate approach with each film.
I'd be happy with Branagh - he has a sensibility of how to craft the right film for the specific story / character, rather than impose his own themes and 'auteurisms' on the movie whether they work or not.... (here's looking at you, Sam)
You might make similar criticisms of Forster as well.
Yes, Ken is up for taking the right approach for that movie, rather than imposing his signature style.
I might... but I don't.
Forster did his best with an unpolished script (writer strikes etc.), he did not have the resources & budget to make QoS anything more than it became (which is still very decent imo). Mendes had everything in place to produce a TOP entry with SP, and although the film is fine he did not step up to the plate and make full use of all his resources.
I like QOS. I just think some things (like the four elements) were daft.
The difference for me is that his theme & auteurism does not impose itself on the story to the point of dragging it down. SF was full of this.
I agree. I'm just observing that when you bring in Oscar winning directors then they often come with this kind of baggage.
Mendes would be a better Bond director IMO if he didn't insist on 'family issues' playing a part in every film.
Funny thing is that what he thinks adds thematic depth and interest I think comes across as really clunky, awkward film making. SP was a better film for having less of that nonsense that dragged down SF.
That's actually a good diagnosis. Nolan also suffers from this, he could be a truly excellent filmmaker, but he has to tone down the 'clunkiness' of his thematic material.
Whisper it, but yes, it was too forced.
Some filmmakers think that story-heft, or 'gravitas', is something you can inject (read: shoehorn) into a film. But you can't. It has to be part of the weave, it has to flow naturally from the narrative of the story.
Yes but he's directed other stuff that is better.
In balance I'm inclined to agree. I am not a big Mendes fan (as I've said several times, he is hopeless at action scenes) but l did enjoy SP and it makes sense that he ends Craig's tenure. Better writing though please Sam for the next one!
Meh... I'd be glad to have someone fresh take over.
Give DC that which no other long term Bond has been given: a solid send-off. A tight, focused spy-adventure written by someone other than P&W, with less baggage.
I happen to like QoS´ editing style. I understand a lot of people don´t. Still, I think a Bond film is better off faster than slower. I get a dragging feeling during both SF and SP.
Well formulated.
I´m not so sure about Nolan having the potential to be truly excellent, but I agree on the clunkiness.
Meh, Bond is not a tv series, he doesn´t need a send-off. Keep the end open. The end of any of the old Bond films was a message of life-embracing optimism: James Bond will return! Talk about unobtrusive yet very effective subtext, there you are.
Ok I think you misunderstood me - I meant DC needs a really good final entry, a film that is not dragged down by overly heavy themes or artistic licence nor resorts to banal pastiche. It can be done, both CR and SP show this potential despite their flaws.
No other long term Bond has had a truly strong last film, tbh...
Apparently it's rubbish
The film is not rubbish, but also by far not Branagh´s best work, so it would be if not rubbish at least not the best idea to watch exactly that film in order to judge Branagh´s capability as a film director.
And what would qualify him? Apart from one or two or three great pieces of entertainment he did 30 years ago?
You you, I never thought of that, but it's not half bad of an idea. If the next instalment is going to tackle the whole Bond/Blofeld relationship, Branagh could actually make that interesting.