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
I am now 100% behind this man directing multiple Bond movies.
But yes, totally in agreement with @bondjames.
Ha. That never occurred to me but it might have worked better than Waltz
I thoroughly enjoyed MI:FO but agree that it wasn’t as strong as the outstanding Rogue Nation; one of the problems was the culminating of existing plot threads, such as tying up loose ends with his wife, which weighed it down a bit.
With a clean slate McQuarrie would be more than up to the task for introducing a new Bond.
+1. The guy is reading my mind.
Good. Here’s hoping it will be his best performance since CR.
Would be great. I hope it's true.
McQuarrie is saying everything I's want to hear from a potential director – "a Bond who enjoys being Bond" (we really need that!), enjoying Pierce's Bond, and little reference from one movie to the other. Sign him now!
CJF's recent comments is exactly the thought process that inspires confidence in Bond 25. We may end up getting a better Bond film in Bond 25 than CR. Emphasis on may.
As for McQ's comments. Bang on. He clearly knows what he's talking about and ironically enough, that makes 2 American directors who seemingly have a better grip and understanding as to who and what Bond is, more so than the pretentious boring mess Mendes shoved down our throats. In any case, I think we have nothing to worry about regarding Bond's near future. Exciting and promising times ahead.
What the F is that supposed to mean, exactly? If McQuarrie's opinions of DC are based on tabloid BS, then, no, he has no business being behind the lens on any Bond film. It shows how uneducated he is.
I think he refers to this:
Versus this:
To put it short; a Bond who enjoys himself more than a Bond haunted by past events.
Yes, he’s speaking about the character not the actor.
There was that element in CR but onward he became more grim.
A scene that illustrates this in CR is when Bond and Vesper are checking in at the hotel in Montenegro; Bond uses his real name and Vesper storms off furious at Bond . The girl at the desk tells Bond to ‘’ enjoy his stay’ and Bond cheerfully replies ‘I will’
Not the exact dialog, but the point is Bond is having fun being Bond.
Considering how long that took this time I don't think McQuarrie should hold his breath, although I'd probably be more that happy with him as a director. I imagine B26 is a very long way off.
I just hope Fukanaga's Bond film is so excellent, well renown, iconic, and legendary that it jump starts the franchise for future outings.
And it's really upsetting for me that Craig's Bond evolved into a miserable and mourning man since Vesper's death. His fun moments started shifting into brooding gloom, thus starting to question himself and seeming depressed every 0.24 seconds. That doesn't sound like a Bond who's having fun and enjoying himself. If that wouldn't convince you (people in general who want to contradict the thought), nothing will.
Yes. QoS hotel scene with Fields also. Craig has proven he can do the 'cheerful' side of Bond, and I would like to see some of that in Bond 25.
Craig's only made 4 films so far, you'd think the whole series had been dark films but I certainly don't want to see Bond revert to OOT gadgets, cheesy oneliners and an actor made of wood like Cavill going forward.
The Brosnan era was of it's time we most certainly don't need a return bar GE to rip off Roger Moore entries with an actor with none of the class.
Kingsman fits the bill for that kind of nonsense, I admit the DC film have become dour, infact although SP supposedly was lightening the mood it came across for me as the most miserable one of the lot of that era because that kind of thing isn't for DC.
Though I don't want a laugh fest or Bond portrayed as smug millionaire like playboy we've had that with 2 Bond's already why do we need to return to it?
What is needed is a balance and yes Bond can be seen to be enjoying himself more but not to the point of the character becoming a laughable caricature.
The world has moved on, unfortunately some of the fans of this series haven't and have permanently got their rose tinted specs of nostalgia on.
If McQuarrie want to revert back to 90's Bond then I'm sorry I don't fancy it, think he should stick to MI, to much opportunity for comparrison.
No fan here suggested that. Why use these extreme examples?
One of the things he has shown in his MI films is the ability to present appropriate humor and a lighter side without sacrificing the integrity of a dramatic story.
Because wanting a Bond that has life in him like Connery, Moore or Brosnan means that "Entitled fans" want a Kingsman style Bond movie on Acid and LSD cranked up to 1000. [-(
Fleming's Bond versus Connery's Bond