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
Words of wisdom.
The Moore era was popular. Guess what, TLD and LTK were the opposite of the Moore era. Why would they introduce a new actor by reminding us of the previous one? The logic is lost on me.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true. The Living Daylights in particular had some elements to it that felt like it would belong in a Moore film. The cello case sled scene and the campy nature of Koskov and Whittaker. just to give a couple examples. Not knocking the film but it still had faint echoes of Moore in it.
Licence to Kill was pure Dalton.
Faint echoes, sure, but as soon as Dalton came on board, TLD became something quite different, IMO.
Words of wisdom, indeed. Forwards is the way. Replication would be an insult to Craig, and I highly doubt Barbara would do that.
At the same time? Now wouldn't that be something ;) The title could be Doubleshot...oh, wait.. :)
I absolutely believe every Bond era has its successes and failures. That I prefer one era over another certainly doesn't mean I don't find fault. To your point about something being overdone is precisely why I don't want to see it again, even if done well.
?? Weren't all 4 Brosnan movies standalone? Casino Royale and Skyfall were standalone too when they were released, only later movies made them non-standalone.
And this is a problem why?
If that happened, I'd be more than happy.
Imagine a new Bond actors debut with a film like that.
I'm not a huge fan of Villeneuve, but I think Blade Runner 2049 is the film that shows a certain amount of Bond-influence, with the hero being introduced in what is essentially a mini-adventure which ties into the main plot in much the same way that Bond pre-title sequences do, and of course Jared Leto's outlandish scheming mastermind pulling strings whilst his henchman (or woman, in this case) is the physical threat to the hero.
Exactly, can Villeneuve do bond without making it cerebral and moody and slow? I think there would likely be 1 or 2 big action scenes, just enough to put in the trailers, and most of the film would have very little dialogue, just a visual feast as Villeneuve films are.
If one watched Monster's Ball or The Kite Runner, would anyone imagine the same director would have delivered QoS?
If one watched cheesy flicks like Criminal Law or Defenseless, would one have thought Martin Campbell capable of making not just one, sophisticated and slick Bond film, but two, and two that are regarded as top of the series?
To try and see a Bond film in a cerebral sci-fi film is really asking a lot of a filmmaker.
I suppose if one wanted to see what Villeneuve could do as a Bond director, you should seek out one of his films that would be closer in genre, like Sicario. And then watch del Toro's character perform his assassination scene. That would be the best bet to see how Villeneuve could, potentially, approach a Bond film.
I'm personally not concerned about the casting of Bond, nor the director. I have faith that whomever these people are, it'll be the right ones...
Any director will also bring their previous experience and little 'touches' as well, but how they tell a Bond story is arguably based on their adaptability. To Villeneuve's credit he's a director adept at working in a variety of genres and is able to effectively tell a distinct story for each of his films. That's actually encouraging, even if I'm not his biggest fan.
That's what I have been trying to say before, @peter. Looking at a director's resume, and drawing conclusions about hypothetical Bond films, is a strange thing to do. Many were thrilled that Danny Boyle was going to do a Bond film, the guy who made Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Sunshine, The Beach, and Slumdog Millionaire. What in these films screams Bond? Except that Boyle has artistic merit, can work with actors, can turn in awesome films on small budgets, and can produce beautiful images. That's what made me interested in a Boyle film. Same with Villeneuve. He's a filmmaker who has already shown tremendous skill.
The question is not so much, what has this director done that is like Bond? The question is, is this a capable director? A capable director understands that Bond is not something he should axe up until it fits the mood, tone, pace and art of his previous work. Rather, he understands Bond's DNA and is excited about making a kick-ass Bond film that pleases fans, draws in large audiences and appeals to a new generation of young future Bond fans.
When people are afraid that Bond will not line up well with a respectable director's previous work, I offer them Mister Mom as Batman to reflect on. Remember, also, that Spielberg was mocked by critics when he started making "serious" films. Robert Pattinson is now a respected actor, yet wasn't he hideous as Edward in that Twilight crap? Saying that Villeneuve will surely make a Bond film that's slow, cerebral, emotionally cold, boring even, feels a bit hysterical and leads to just the same mistakes. I think Villeneuve has shown that he deserves some credit. If -- and it's a big if -- Villeneuve ends up doing a Bond film someday, shall we give the talented filmmaker some credit rather than assume that he's already exhausted his range, style and inspiration?
Good directors shape themselves and their skills to a project and what it needs, they don't try and turn it into something its not and Villeneuve would be no different.
And, as you say, this is a big IF (I do believe that Villeneuve is right at the top of their choices, but scheduling (as Villeneuve’s past with EoN proves), is a very real obstacle). If EoN isn’t ready with a script and casting, and one or two of Villeneuve’s other projects are ready to go, he won’t wait forever and he’ll have to move on.
Like everything in this industry: nothing is written in stone until a film is locked and delivered (directors can get fired, actors can get injured, natural disasters can wipe sets out (all things that have happened (Bryan Singer/Josh Trank; actors who do some of their own stunts get hurt all the time (Ford, Craig, Clooney); the first time Gilliam was to shoot his Don Quixote film, Mother Nature had other plans…))…; stars have to align, and it’s never as simple as someone “wanting” to do a multi million tent pole film. So much has to actually fall in place (it really is a wonder that these types of films are made every year).
I think the quote " I have four projects on the table, currently. One of them is a secret project that I cannot talk about right now, but that needs to see the light of day quite quickly," IF it pertains to Bond, sounds like he's concerned Eon are taking too long to get the ball rolling. I tend to agree with Peter that even if Villeneuve's secret project is Bond it is by no means certain that it will happen. A lot of planets have to align to put someone so currently popular in the director's chair of such a carefully managed franchise.
Amazon will certainly be willing to throw any amount of money to get the wheels turning.
💯 % @sandbagger1 … Development is exactly that: it’s doing some heavy lifting in early stages to make sure, as best as possible, that the production doesn’t get knee-capped in some way, later down the road. Development of these hugely expensive projects takes time. The people behind the scenes (including those at Amazon), know this, they know what’s at stake, and they will take all the time they need (and IF this secret project is indeed Bond, then EoN and Amazon know they’re now in some kind of three-headed race, and there is no guarantee they’ll be the victors).
Yes, @peter, that too. I doubt that EoN is ever going to let a director operate in isolation, i.e. in full control of the entire project. A Bond film is typically a "family" effort; a director is not likely to ever monopolise a film. It's certainly true that directors bring a vision, possibly even a DP, composer, ..., and if their ideas please the chiefs, then they probably gain some freedom. But in the end, I'm sure that they still answer to the producers. Remember, Boyle had to walk. Even Danny Boyle, who is not exactly a random nobody, wasn't going to make his Bond film.
Really depends on your definition of "humor" @Kojak007 ... In Sicario, I thought most of Brolin's scenes had a biting, sardonic or black humor....
Can Villeneuve really justify hanging around until 2026 when he has so many projects in development? Maybe, if he's really passionate about Bond, but it seems a bit unrealistic to me.
He himself said recently: "the danger in Hollywood is thinking about release dates, not quality." and "there is absolutely a desire to have a third one, but I don’t want to rush it."