What Directors Should Helm A Bond Film?

13435373940106

Comments

  • Posts: 17,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    All I can say is EON should have cast Cate Blanchett in a Bond film. It's probably too late now, but she is going to show everyone how brilliant she is (as if there was any doubt) in Thor Ragnarok. I might add that I find her extremely attractive as well.
    Cate Blanchett would be perfect now, just as she would be perfect later! If not as a Bond girl, she would be an interesting villain as well.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Or M. Or Q. I would take her with pleasure in any of those roles!
  • MooresflaresMooresflares Manchester
    Posts: 14
    Paul greengrass or David fincher
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Tuulia, just to clarify my thinking on this, I'm not averse in principle to the concept of an older woman with a younger man, or vice versa. Like fine wine, there is a lot that can be appreciated in someone who has had time to mature, and that can be captured on screen with a competent director.

    However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my opinion can shift depending on the specific woman. As I noted in my prior post, I can see a decline in Theron (not physically, but facially) which makes me less inclined to want her as a main Bond girl. Bellucci was a stunner in her prime, but she too didn't look that great to me (even though her performance was very good) in SP. Having said that, her role (that of widow and secondary character) in SP was perfectly fine, and her age was not an issue because of the way the character was written. Moreover, both Bellucci and Theron are both quite age appropriate for Craig (even though Theron is too tall for him), so if he's back for B25 and they go with her, I wouldn't be upset. He doesn't look that great either tbh.

    I'm not sure about the common view in Hollywood about older men with younger women, but I'm sure you can appreciate that as a man I am perhaps biased towards that view myself. As long as the woman is mature enough as a person, I don't have a problem with younger girls (or older ones for that matter, as long as they meet my lowly personal standards). It's all good.

    Not really. I've never gotten it. Why would women need to be half the age of the men to be considered attractive enough? Obviously what and who anyone finds attractive is always a personal opinion, in itself, but I don't get the demand for huge age differences that many men seem to have. It has been and continues to be very common in movies, so you have the Hollywood view right there. I actually don't understand why men want to see that, and I can rarely take such pairings in movies seriously, it just seems to be there to please the male audiences (and producers, studio heads, directors, in some cases maybe also actors if they're so inclined and powerful enough).
    Yes, I'm sure it's there to please the male audiences. However, female youth has always been in demand, since time immemorial. James Stewart or Cary Grant with Eva Marie Saint or Grace Kelly comes to mind. Why? Well, perhaps because men are attracted to physical beauty, and youthful women are more of a guarantee of that. I'm sure there's also some Freudian element to it (the possibility of bearing children and what not).

    It's the same reason why most male heroes these days tend to 'bulk up' when they're cast in major roles. Bale did it for BB. Craig did it for CR. Affleck did it for BvS. Is it because of some cave like historic fantasy of women for a Fabio'esque hero to whisk them away and protect them? Who knows? There certainly seems to be less interest in the 'lean' male hero these days, and perhaps that is to pander to female preferences? More and more young actors are sporting unshaven (cave like?) looks and are seen in their underwear on magazine covers. Why is this? Surely it's for women because it does nothing for me.

    All I can say is EON should have cast Cate Blanchett in a Bond film. It's probably too late now, but she is going to show everyone how brilliant she is (as if there was any doubt) in Thor Ragnarok. I might add that I find her extremely attractive as well.

    Could very well be, but does nothing for me, either. Trying too hard = not interesting to me. Presumably is interesting for some, though. Underwear/bikini pics (or nudes pics, for that matter) of women have always been popular with men. I think there is generally less interest from women for similar pics of men.

    I don't find people attractive based on only, or even primarily on looks, and I have a really hard time understanding the idea that certain people are supposedly attractive simply because of how they look. Or that people are sexier the less clothes they have on (the idea behind underwear pics, surely). Those seem to be more male things, but many women go for them as well. Just doesn't work for me.

    And bulking up... well, doesn't make a guy attractive to me if he isn't otherwise, and too much of that is just eww. There are fashions with what's considered "attractive" as well as anything else. Nowadays men are expected to bulk up for certain roles, but that wasn't always the case - whether it's more for women or men, well, I suspect more for men, actually, and I don't mean gay men, but men in general. They are the main target audience for most of those movies, too. I suppose it started with people like Schwarzenegger and Stallone and people like that, and they were more for men than women as well.

    Facial hair has been fashionable for several years already, and personally I wish that fashion would pass sooner rather than later. It has also given men who generally don't give much of a crap about fashion or how they look an excuse not to shave, and one suspects that when the fashion passes they still won't.
    Currently the situation regarding facial hair is such that... one sees a pic of an actor clean-shaven, and it's "whaaa... you got a new job?" Then the facial hair grows back, not even rumours of any job, but one remains suspicious of something being up. A couple of months later one sees some new pics and thinks "hey, you look so much younger... oh wait, clean-shaven again!" Definitely a job, but what? Some weeks later one listens to a director discuss what he's working on, and he mentions he has done make-up tests with an actor... "Bingo!" When the announcement appears in the trades a couple of weeks later, and people are "Whatttt?" one is just "well, fully expected that bit of news, it was obvious wasn't it?" :D (I saw that several people who heard that interview - whether they had seen those pics or not - made the same conclusions, based also on director's words, and knowledge of that actor-director relationship being such that a new collaboration was just a question of time. The interviewer seemed clueless, but what do they know. ;) (Bale-McKay-Cheney, btw.)

    I agree that Cate Blanchett is brilliant, and gorgeous. I'm surprised you find her attractive considering her age. ;) So maybe age isn't that important? I'd also say that she is indeed attractive - and being beautiful doesn't really make her so, but the combination of personality and talent. - There are plenty of good looking people who are just good looking. (And women can say that sort of things about women, with no problem, men usually can't, which I find weird and unfortunate. I think it was @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 who recently said something about that issue somewhere...).

    Attractive personalities make attractive people, not certain types of looks (neither face nor body). To me that is. There are fashions of what is supposed to be attractive. Nowadays there's a cookie cutter line of actors that are supposedly attractive, and I have trouble telling them apart, and my general view regarding them is "meh". Earlier it was somewhat different, but the idea was the same. Supposedly attractive people, due to looks.
    An example from way back: after seeing Thelma and Louise a female friend commented how hot the young guy (Brad Pitt, unknown to us and most others at the time) was in it. My view was that well, he was pretty, but so what, he (the character) was a jerk, and I didn't see him as attractive at all, just a pretty jerk. Not that a different type of character would have made a difference (as I later found), but an unpleasant character didn't help.
    Bland never helps, either (the cookie cutter stars of certain types of looks), but Hollywood favors them, so they must appeal to some people, I suppose. Or maybe they don't, just the movies do, and the actors are interchangeable blank canvasses? (Those movies don't appeal to me, either, so I can't tell what the attraction is.) I know those guys are supposed to appeal to women, and do to some. Most of them aren't even that young, so it's not that they look like kids to me, either. There's just nothing interesting there - I mean just the pretty isn't it.
    bondjames wrote: »
    All I can say is EON should have cast Cate Blanchett in a Bond film. It's probably too late now, but she is going to show everyone how brilliant she is (as if there was any doubt) in Thor Ragnarok. I might add that I find her extremely attractive as well.
    Cate Blanchett would be perfect now, just as she would be perfect later! If not as a Bond girl, she would be an interesting villain as well.

    Yes, she would.
    So big names are bad? Like, Hitchcock bad?

    I'm afraid he wouldn't be available.

    Personally I have nothing against big names.
    Paul greengrass or David fincher

    Not sure about Greengrass, but I would be very interested in Fincher.
  • Posts: 386
    Just saw Baby Driver.

    Edgar Wright has talent, no doubt. But there's still something adolescent about his film making IMO.

    The film needed to 'bite' harder, but I'm not sure he has it in him.

    Needs more films under the belt, needs maturity as a film-maker. Let's revisit the Bond discussion for him in ten years.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Just saw Baby Driver.

    Edgar Wright has talent, no doubt. But there's still something adolescent about his film making IMO.

    The film needed to 'bite' harder, but I'm not sure he has it in him.

    Needs more films under the belt, needs maturity as a film-maker. Let's revisit the Bond discussion for him in ten years.
    I wasn't all that impressed with Baby Driver personally. It wasn't bad. Entertaining enough, but I didn't get what the big deal was really. Overhyped imho. I don't know much about his other films.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I agree that Cate Blanchett is brilliant, and gorgeous. I'm surprised you find her attractive considering her age. ;) So maybe age isn't that important? I'd also say that she is indeed attractive - and being beautiful doesn't really make her so, but the combination of personality and talent. - There are plenty of good looking people who are just good looking. (And women can say that sort of things about women, with no problem, men usually can't, which I find weird and unfortunate.
    I've always had a 'thing' for Blanchett @Tuulia, ever since The Talented Mr. Ripley and The Gift. So even though she's past her prime I'm a huge proponent of hers. Bottom line though is she is great at what she does and is very classy in an old school sort regal of way. That naturally finds its way into her characters as well and I find that appealing. So yes, my interest in her has to do with her characters, style, & commitment as much as her physical look.

    I agree with you on the male 'bulking' up, underpant spreads and facial hair. I'd like to see a bit less of all of that too personally.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Re: underpants spread: absolutely! When Hiddles did his photo shoot, an actor I already found annoying, stagy, and not very appealing-- I wanted to boot him right in his sack with those cheesy, open-legged shots of his!

    Truly, his underwear spread looked more satire than sexy (if it were satire, I'd perhaps have more respect for him, but, alas.....)
  • Posts: 2,081
    @bondjames, Blanchett is NOT past her prime, but right in it. :) Frankly I find it ridiculous in general that women are considered to be past their prime after mid-30s or so, definitely after 40, while men are generally thought to be just entering their prime around that age (35 to 40). Hence the ridiculous age-differences in movies so often as well. There's something twisted about that whole thing.
    peter wrote: »
    Re: underpants spread: absolutely! When Hiddles did his photo shoot, an actor I already found annoying, stagy, and not very appealing-- I wanted to boot him right in his sack with those cheesy, open-legged shots of his!

    Truly, his underwear spread looked more satire than sexy (if it were satire, I'd perhaps have more respect for him, but, alas.....)

    Yeah, that was sort of embarrassing. Not that men in underwear is any worse idea than women in underwear, but geez, that one was bad. A lot of the blame goes to photographer, actually, for taking such bad pics as if they were clueless of what they were doing.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited July 2017 Posts: 13,807
    Honestly, I don't see a moral (or any other) equivalence between men in underwear and women in underwear. I have a definite bias for one being superior over the other.
    Is it Friday yet?
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 5,767
    I find it disrespectful to consider human beings past their prime, actors or not. It´s a sign of obsession and of the inability to see true values.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Shall we first...first worry about the story? I mean, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are writing at least the first story treatment for Bond #25. Well, they have been confirmed to do once again the whole shabam. So if their story is shit, and we have some reason to believe that Purvis & Wade are at least a bit tired from a creative perspective (to put it mildly), then it doesn't matter who's acting or directing. Purvis & Wade on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/britain-ruled-nazis-would-bond-do-007-writers-purvis-wade/:
    “Each time you’ve got to say something about Bond’s place in the world, which is Britain’s place in the world. But things are moving so quickly now, that becomes tricky. With people like Trump, the Bond villain has become a reality.”

    So before we start dreaming about dream casts, which sadly I also did on numerous occassions (remember I applauded the Oscar-heavy star casts back in 2011), we can only hope Wurvis & Pade show some genuine creative interest in the Bond franchise and write a slam-dunk, ff-ing good, trendsetting, ingenious, original Bond story. And if they ran out of ideas, which sadly they did on numerous occassions, then read "Trigger Mortis" or "You Only Live Twice" or a Dynamite comic and adapt that!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Tuulia, @boldfinger, re: the prime thing - I'm not judging, but at the end of the day we all decline (mentally and physically) with age. There's no getting away from that fact. It's all a question of how rapidly. In terms of actors/actresses, one can still be very credible depending in the role well into the later years. However, as we debate here often regarding Craig, there comes a time when certain roles won't be credibly feasible. Ageing is a disappointing thing no doubt, but it's inevitable.

    In terms of Blanchett: in terms of her acting, she is definitely in her prime. Her skillset has improved due to the diversity of roles that she has attempted over the years, so much so that she can handle nearly anything these days. There are some like her who've really been diverse & stretched themselves to the best of their abilities, and they are to be commended.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Its very interested the near obsession re the director but, really IMHO, there should be an equally big thread, or longer, on the script. There are plenty of movies out there that have great scripts with average direction and they are good movies. You cant say the reverse. A poor script directed by a genius is still going to be a bad movie.

    The next Bond really does need a great screenwriter as THE prime requirement. We know from previous Bonds that if the characters, set pieces, plot, dialogue is poor, then its a lost cause.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    There are plenty of movies out there that have great scripts with average direction and they are good movies. You cant say the reverse. A poor script directed by a genius is still going to be a bad movie.
    I'm not sure I agree on this. Film is a visual medium, & so a very enjoyable (although perhaps still technically 'bad') film could potentially be created even with a weak script. I've seen some argue that SF was such a film.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Dont start me on SF!, to keep the discussion reasoned, can anyone name a film (outside of Bond) that has a poor script that was salvaged by brilliant direction. Cinema is obviously visual but its more than just a pop video with good lighting etc. Its all about the story. Many really low budget movies have done well because they are great stories wth great characters etc. You have to be emotionally invloved. Wonderful lighting and great editing etc does not mean anything if you dont care about whats happening.

    IMHO the script is the foundation of the project, if its weak/cracked, it won't produce anything of quality

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Without spoiling it for folks who haven't seen it, could we argue that Dunkirk meets your criteria? Is there a good script there? Or is it purely about the visuals and the experience. I honestly don't remember much of a script but it's a film I want to rewatch as soon as possible. I'm playing devil's advocate of course. Generally, I think compelling characters are critical, more so than plot imho. That's why I love SF and can't stand SP.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Just give me Martin Campbell. he and Craig started this, fitting way to end the tenure. nobody has made better Bond films in my lifetime.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Sorry, @bondjames, but you honestly can't spoil Dunkirk for anyone unless they're completely void of any historical knowledge. But then that would be more a case of shame on them, rather than pandering into not giving away any spoilers.

    I can't say I love SF, nor, for that matter, can I draw any parallels with Nolan's Dunkirk. Aside from M, what other compelling characters were there in SF? Surely not the villain with the magic keyboard that could blow up MI6 HQ, escape from a secure cell and prance around the London Underground unchallenged? As you might have guessed, I'm still not at peace with Bond having lifted many of its set-pieces from The Dark Knight.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    With Dunkirk, I think Nolan has finally nailed down the type of film he makes, and it took on a real life event to get there. I was beginning to tire of his films with TDKR and Interstellar. It seemed to be that he could only tell one type of story, but Dunkirk seems almost a direct response to that criticism. This film really got me excited about the prospect of Nolan directing Bond, because it showed that he could make a film "in the present tense", and that's exactly what Bond needs right now. This is a Bond calling card film, even if it was never intended as such. Imagine how much of a breath of fresh air it would be to have a Bond film that takes place in the present tense, with the simple premise of Bond being handed his Walther and sent out into the field. This is exactly the kind of simple premise storytelling that Nolan has approached with Dunkirk and its a real out of left field change of gears for him. Doubtless if he had been writing the story from scratch he would have added more layers, but know that Nolan has made this, I think it opens up phase 2 of his career. He has always been a defender of film as a medium, and the cinematic tradition, but now he is taking it to new heights. It's almost like something has finally clicked into place in his mind, and now he is less reliant on dialogue and illustrating of themes, and more letting the language of cinema do the talking. How does this apply to Bond. Well, I think Bond films have a problem of getting bogged down with themes and current events that they lose sight of the visceral experiences they once were. In the end, its about whether Bond can make it through without getting killed, and in that sense Dunkirk was a great primer for Nolan entering this universe.
  • Posts: 4,617
    "In the end, its about whether Bond can make it through without getting killed, "

    theres never going to be much tension in that scenario. I think we can all guess the outcome.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    patb wrote: »
    "In the end, its about whether Bond can make it through without getting killed, "

    theres never going to be much tension in that scenario. I think we can all guess the outcome.

    It depends on how they go about it.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 684
    @bondjames @patb

    Chandler once made a distinction between authors who write stories and authors who write writing (of which class he considered himself).

    I think a similar distinction could be useful here, in that it could be said there are filmmakers who film stories and those who 'film film.'

    Every medium has its advantages when it comes to telling stories, and I think each succeeds most often when it uses those advantages. People often complain of novel to film adaptations being bad, for example. Part of this comes down to the filmmaker's 'filming the novel,' focusing too much on the story (which will never be duplicated better than it was in the imagination, as imagination is the intended result of prose) instead of translating the story into image.

    I think the more focused a film is on story alone, the more impossible it then becomes for that film to surpass its initial script. The CHiPs script as directed by Christopher Nolan is still going be a hunk of junk.

    As a film begin to dabble in more of what is accomplishable only in the art of film, the importance of the script goes down. The quality of DUNKIRK, as mentioned, does not in the end come down to its script.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Out of curiosity, it was mentioned on The Wrap website that if Nolan was to direct a future Bond movie that he had a concept for Bond that hadn't been done yet, but would not share details for fear that he would need the idea to get the job someday in the future. Does anybody have any ideas or guesses as to what they might be?

    I was thinking about Dunkirk and Nolan's approach to not seeing the enemy, only in silhouette or hidden in a cockpit. Could this be a future idea, where we never actually get to see what Bond's enemies look like in the first movie, remaining a mystery until the second feature? Sure, it smacks of Blofeld in FRWL but when has an old idea stopped Nolan from repeating it?
  • Posts: 684
    bondsum wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, it was mentioned on The Wrap website that if Nolan was to direct a future Bond movie that he had a concept for Bond that hadn't been done yet, but would not share details for fear that he would need the idea to get the job someday in the future. Does anybody have any ideas or guesses as to what they might be?
    Honestly, simply because the man seems to love non-linear storytelling, I wouldn't be surprised if that was one.

    I think one of the big things Nolan would bring (and so far as Bond goes I'm neither pro- nor anti-Nolan) is a sense of ambition. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a go at an Adam-style set.

    Regardless, I have no doubts that, unlike Mendes, if Nolan were directing the money would go up on the screen.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Just check out Koyaanisqatsi and its sequels for films without a real script at all that are works of art in themselves.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Strog wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, it was mentioned on The Wrap website that if Nolan was to direct a future Bond movie that he had a concept for Bond that hadn't been done yet, but would not share details for fear that he would need the idea to get the job someday in the future. Does anybody have any ideas or guesses as to what they might be?
    Honestly, simply because the man seems to love non-linear storytelling, I wouldn't be surprised if that was one.

    I think one of the big things Nolan would bring (and so far as Bond goes I'm neither pro- nor anti-Nolan) is a sense of ambition. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a go at an Adam-style set.

    Regardless, I have no doubts that, unlike Mendes, if Nolan were directing the money would go up on the screen.
    Interesting. Yes, I could see Nolan jumping around the timeframe of the story, presenting different perspectives from other players. It does tend to be a trait of his. I'm also inclined to agree about him utilizing a Ken Adam style set in the movie. Something that's been greatly missed in the modern Bond movies, despite lame attempts by Dennis Gassner to try and update the concept, albeit with CGI in some cases, and of course Peter Lamont's good but-not-quite fantastique designs.

    Any other takers out there that might have a guess on Nolan's 007 concept not done yet?
  • Posts: 4,617
    The danger with Nolan possibly is that he would bring his own style too much and divide the fans and jo public. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. With Batman, he just really ignored the cinema heritage and started again. That was fine but the heritage for Bond is much much stronger. He would have to show real self restraint and sensitivity IMHO to keep the spirit of Bond whilst bringing in his own talent.
    After all, if it happens, we dont want to be watching a Nolan film, we want to be watching a Bond film. No actor is bigger than Bond and no director either.
  • ChiefTannerChiefTanner Wilmington, DE, USA
    Posts: 34
    I love Nolan and I want to see his Bond movie. I think the problem is not his Bond movie. The problem is what comes after his Bond movie. The continuity "shared universe" conundrum is a problem going forward and I wonder if they should drop that idea and go back to the old model.

    I'd like to see a Nolan directed 60s era Bond movie closer to the books and maybe just that one before they move forward again with a new actor and team.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    Chandler once made a distinction between authors who write stories and authors who write writing (of which class he considered himself).

    I think a similar distinction could be useful here, in that it could be said there are filmmakers who film stories and those who 'film film.'

    Every medium has its advantages when it comes to telling stories, and I think each succeeds most often when it uses those advantages. People often complain of novel to film adaptations being bad, for example. Part of this comes down to the filmmaker's 'filming the novel,' focusing too much on the story (which will never be duplicated better than it was in the imagination, as imagination is the intended result of prose) instead of translating the story into image.

    I think the more focused a film is on story alone, the more impossible it then becomes for that film to surpass its initial script. The CHiPs script as directed by Christopher Nolan is still going be a hunk of junk.

    As a film begin to dabble in more of what is accomplishable only in the art of film, the importance of the script goes down. The quality of DUNKIRK, as mentioned, does not in the end come down to its script.
    Good post. I agree. I think some of the better film adaptations don't follow the book rote but rather adapt it to accommodate the visual medium
    --
    bondsum wrote: »
    I can't say I love SF, nor, for that matter, can I draw any parallels with Nolan's Dunkirk. Aside from M, what other compelling characters were there in SF? Surely not the villain with the magic keyboard that could blow up MI6 HQ, escape from a secure cell and prance around the London Underground unchallenged? As you might have guessed, I'm still not at peace with Bond having lifted many of its set-pieces from The Dark Knight.
    I thought there were several interesting characters in SF. Mallory, Q, Eve, Severine, Kincaide and of course Silva. Mansfield isn't what draws me to the film. Rather it's all the other characters. I empathize with them and can understand their motivations and reasons for their behaviour. They're all likable and relatable to me in some way shape or form. Yes, I agree that a lot is lifted from Nolans TDK, but given how seminal that film was, it's not a bad place to start.

    I wasn't making any comparisons between SF & Dunkirk though. The former is a character based film. The latter is purely visual and aural. There's very little focus on character development in Dunkirk. SF is lambasted for having a weak plot but the character interaction is very good imho.

    RE: your question about what Nolan has in store for Bond: I think he'll strip it back to its roots and focus on the unique style of Bond. He's a visual film maker, so I think he will try to create a film which captures the spirit of what moved him about OO7 when he was younger. That means extraordinary atmosphere, location work, stunts, score, sets, cinematography & a real inimitable British class. I definitely agree that he'd probably bring a more Adam'esque flavour to the whole thing. He mentioned in a recent interview that he loved the combination of scale, exoticism, believability & extraordinariness of the earlier Bond films.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 3,333
    Cheers @bondjames for your feedback. On the subject of Nolan, another thought struck me that was inspired by @Strog's comment about "non-linear storytelling" and what we haven't seen yet in a Bond movie. Now, I am neither supporting this idea or promoting it, it's just a suggestion. But, could the Nolan's idea be along the lines of two separate timelines; one involving a younger 007 and the other an older Bond? Again, I'm just using this as an opportunity to explore what a Nolan Bond movie would look like and what he meant by his comments.

    With regards to SF, and each to his/her own, but one of the things that frustrated me the most in SF was the characterization. I didn't particularly warm to either Moneypenny or Q as they were written as rather amateurish; each making huge mistakes that cost lives which would've got them the sack. Mallory was simply there as a sounding board to explain to the audience the irrelevance of the 007 program and M's frustrations. Kincaide was only there mostly as a cameo and to relay a totally garbled Fleming backstory about Skyfall and the Young Master Bruce, cough, I mean James Junior. Sure, the actors were all credible in their delivery, but these were are all seasoned thespians, so that much was to be expected. Sorry, but I just don't dig SF or the changes they made to accommodate his un-Fleming ancestral home that just feels it coincides with Bruce Wayne Manor for the sake of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.