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
Insomnia is still one of Nolan's more "meh" works, saved by the acting of the trio of Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hilary Swank. The Prestige is much more interesting and well thought out, though both are great films in their own right.
Watched the Prestige. I love it so much, for what it does at the very end.
However, whether or not he can make a good Bond film is my concern.
I'd love to see him do another Christian Bale film with magicians.
http://www.empireonline.com/features/hollywood-stars-favourite-films/default.asp?page=3
Both TDKR and especially Interstellar are bloated films with characters more representing themes then being actual characters.
Sure, I admire him for trying to do everything "for real" and for all the lengths he goes to actually make something different but his directorial style isn't that special and his latest scripts are more expiation than anything else.
It saddens me a bit to say this though.
I can understand the fear for Noland, and that he might turn a Bond film into Gotham City. But wasn't it really Sam Mendes who went all the way with havoc and terrorism in London? London in SF is very comparable to Gotham City in TDK.
Am I happy with that? YES, I am. You've god bad copy-paste work, but also near=perfect inspiration that can bring other movies to higher levels. Which IMO was the case with SF.
I agree. And Sam Mendes drama history helps here. Together with wunderful screenplay writing.
Agreed. And I think the humor helped. Silva was wonderful in the humor department. I can see he was inspired by Nolan's Joker but I thought Silva was a superior villain. Something about him just gave him more menace and charisma.
He is a huge Bond fan and has already met the producers several times. I believe Nolan will direct a Bond film one day no matter what.
We're dealing with a franchise that has a 50+ year history in movies, and a longer history in books. One must afford it the proper respect. I don't think he necessarily will.
From what I see about Nolan, he likes to push the envelope completely. He is a visionary and he likes to bring his grand vision to characters. He was able to implement his vision with Batman because of the absolutely horrendous Batman and Robin being the preceding movie that nearly killed the movie franchise (can you believe that unfortunate tripe was part of the same franchise that brought you the original Batman-1989?).
So he was in a good position to create a grand vision with Batman at an opportune time. Also it was an origin story, so he could delve into the character completely with his vision.
With Bond, we've had a very succesful creative and box office run with Craig - and we've already had our origin story. So I don't think EON is going to go for grand changes in vision. I don't think they'll risk another origin story so soon either, or at all again, for fear of duplicating the Amazing Spiderman fiasco.
From what I can see, at most, moving the gun barrel around, removing some cliches and hiring a short, blond, thuggish Bond (but great actor) are as far as they are willing to go. In a way, I agree with that. As long as we have good story characterisations (which we very much do nowadays) we don't need grand visionaries messing with the franchise.
The same would be true if Tarrantino touched Bond, so I'm glad he did not.
Both these guys would be more suited to a Bond 'style' movie......like what Cameron did with True Lies. Perhaps they would also be more appropriate to do a rogue Bond, like NSNA, where they could really go all out. With the rights reverting to EON however, that won't happen.
Keep the original pure, thank you very much.
If Nolan wants to give a three movie Bond story arc his treatment I think that would great. It doesn't have to be three any way. He could just do one or two. What's the fuss? We have had some truly mediocre directors helm Bond. Even Mendes was not exactly at a career peak when he was offered SF. EON were helping him out as much vice versa.
What are we afraid of? A brilliant director with an amazing visual style wants to direct Bond. Let's give him a go and see what happens! I don't think the staid old formula approach is ever going to fully return (probably a good thing). So why not go with this auteur thing for a while and and see where it takes us?
I am worried about someone pushing the envelope too far however, just because of the franchise's history. Unfortunately, that history is one of the most difficult things to manage. If you push the envelope too far creatively, and then that director leaves, what do you do then? Where do you go from there?
That's the same problem I have with the new Bat/Supes movie. I'm really curious to see how they treat Batman in that one, since it follows Nolan's take.
I'm not averse to it per se, just worried... If you push it too far, then once that director leaves.....you may be forced to keep pushing since you can never go back to status quo (which in Craig's case, I like). Can we really go back to DAD now, after Craig, as an example.
I think Bond is best with small shifts over time, rather than quantum leaps, unless it's been messed up with the last entry (i.e. DAD).
I still think it's a bit of a shame Cubby turned down Spielberg. Turning down Nolan would be a similar missed opportunity IMO.
And speaking of Spielberg May be Cubby was right. Back then I think he would have directed Bond as a bit of a cheese fest, but now I think Spielberg could actually direct a really good Bond. Thinking Minority Report and Munich - two excellent mature Spielberg films.
If you're both right, then I'm all for it. Especially if, as @Getaflix suggests, the following is the case: "I suspect in some ways he might be tempted to tone things down a bit. Do a taught, stripped back thriller Bond, ripe with Hitchcockian tension and beautifully stylised, with the top notch production design you expect with Nolan"
I couldn´t disagree more. Both the aloofness of Nolan´s storytelling and the bleak atmophere predominant in all of his films except his first one, are antithesises to the bright and colorful escapism that has always been a major Bond element. Nolan doesn´t do escapism, he does incapism.
I really like Bardem as Silva but Ledger was a force of nature in TDK and only Waltz matched that level in QT's Inglourious but as I said each to his own, I'm not going to wait for Nolan to direct but if he did it wouldn't be a problem for me.
'James Bond 24' Movie News: Christopher Nolan May Take Over Soon? 'Interstellar' Director Has Had Discussions [VIDEO]
I have my reservations as well, but the DC era has already seen most of that old surreal fun and escapism stripped away. It's not like any if the DC films are a bundle of laughs. SF was visually probably the darkest, drabbest looking Bond movie we've ever had. What's Nolan gonna do that is going to be so utterly different? We're on a Nolanesque trajectory already. Why not try the real deal?
Can the writing be that much worse than P+W? The story might at least have an interesting twist instead of the clunky plotting we got in SF.
I'm all for it. I agree that there are more imaginative and creative routes that could be take , but EON seem a bit of a shambles to be honest. Rather than another four year wait and last minute scrabbling around for a director, appoint Nolan to write and direct B25 now. And let's have it in 2017.
I remember laughing a few times in SF - so did the audience.
Laughing in a good way.