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
Even if that's correct, if those 2 movies represent a refreshing change of pace, then I say it's very worth considering him.
2 of those 2.5 were co-written by Simon Pegg, so I still don't really see a vision of Wright's Bond that isn't all surface jokes and Fourth-wall breaking crap.
@LucknFate You've said it all. I couldn't agree more. Why would I want an ultra-playful director like Wright near Bond? I enjoy Wright's films with an ice cream. But he's clearly not Bond material. I'm really surprised @Mendes4Lyfe who wants the best for James Bond, wants a director like that...Wow!
I know this forum loves to hate on Edgar Wright but this is just incorrect.
You can say that Villeneuve is more talented, and rightfully so, but he's also in a similar mold to other recent directors and every so often there needs to be a change of course.
I think it's tempting to want to see wha hypotheticalt directors will bring to Bond based on our preferences, but in practice it might not be the case. I have my own issues with Wright as a director, and I don't see anything interesting he'd bring to Bond.
But it wouldn't have to be one-dimensional just not have the psychological aspect being foregrounded and made the central focus.
For instance, in The Last Crusade Indiana Jones could not be described as one dimensional, we see in his interactions with his father that they don't see eye to eye, and it was hard on him to grow up with such a distant father, but at the same time the gravity of that doesn't supplant the overall light and adventuring tone of the quest for the grail. I don't know why people always compare something having a fun tone with being worthless when there's so many examples of classic movies that can both be playful AND keep an audience invested emotionally. Forget about Wright, that's just my suggestion, but it can be anyone in that mold. Basically I say that we've had enough takes of trying to see underneath the character at his core, and doing something enough times eventually it becomes tired and stale. In any creative enterprise you have to stay ahead of your audience, otherwise you won't keep people engaged for long.
I think when people write these films they just focus on what's most interesting in terms of character and how to tell a story. However well that works out depends, and it's subjective to a point, but I think that's generally the approach, whoever's directing.
I think a big part of creating any Bond film is making it fun and exciting too. All Bond films are I'd say. Just that their stories and the approach to them can differ (ie. it can more espionage orientated like FRWL, or bigger and more outlandish like MR). It's tricky to say exactly what could work without getting into specifics in that sense.
But... that's clearly not the direction they've chosen.
I dunno, maybe I'm an outdated fan but going around the same merry-go-round of trust issues and "the shadows" and going rogue is getting played out at this point. There's just nothing clever or original about it anymore. If that's all that Bond is going to be, then I guess me and many fans of my ilk will have little reason to stick around in a few years. Bond is capable of being played as a morose, grounded figure but he's also capable of being played with bravado and a wry smile. I think every so often you have to be keep things fresh and keep the audience guessing.
Sounds like Craig's Bond if I'm honest...
I'm sure it'll be fine. I think the next film will be different enough from the last three, and it's a new era anyway.
No, and I think it'd be an odd route for Bond to have gone in now, even considering how different Superman and Bond are.
Why is it an odd route to go in?
I don't think there'd be any need or the right circumstances to go in that creative direction. The last era was generally well received and even praised for bringing maturity to Bond. But it still managed to give us a good bit of fun, outlandishness, and many of the good old tropes of classic Bond films by its last ones. It's like I always say, I don't think this is a course correction film even under Amazon. It's a fresh start that'll be different, but it can build on what came before to do its own thing. They can even be quite bold potentially and take some creative risks.
Superman I can understand needing a course correction even if just to distinguish it from the Snyder films (I probably view Man of Steel how some people misremember the Craig films - ie. a bit too dark and depressing). Superman also isn't quite as big a character internationally compared to Bond (and is quite different anyway), so they probably felt it best to go 'back to basics' with that lighter tone. I think Bond 26 is more akin to The Batman coming after the Christopher Nolan films in its own way.