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
Because I have no idea what it has to do with everything else you've just written if I'm completely honest... and surely the bigger question is what we think Villeneuve will bring to Bond that is a bit more tangible than just 'psychologically complex'. Or indeed what about his work might mean he won't give us a good Bond adventure.
Honestly, I also don't see how this couldn't be applied - purely hypothetically - to a director like Edward Berger if he was the director. Especially when no film has been made as of yet!
Anyway, it's really not the end of the world if you don't enjoy this film. And if you do it'll be a pleasant surprise. I would say just don't make up your mind before you actually see it or get into a self fulfilling property over this! That'd just make anyone miserable for a film they want to watch. It's all good mate.
Considering that Knight’s script will be based on Villeneuve’s pitch,I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The writer and director are not working as separate entities, especially in this phase of the script work. They’re working as partners to get this story greenlit by their bosses.
Do you see how this works? There are not these separate entities all working in their own echo chambers. They are a team.
Amazon hires what they think are the best producers that were on offer (they did a great job). But before they attached, they ALL had to be in some agreement as to the DIRECTION of the new Bond era, and specifically this next film.
Then they have a list of directors they ALL agree on (there may’ve been some back and forth, but they ALL sign off on this).
They contact the agents.
The directors that want to go for the job take the initial interviews…
After initial talks, the producers ALL agree to bring back those that really were bright stars in their first meeting(s). But this time: what’s your pitch for the new Bond?
Then, as a team, they ALL signed off on Villeneuve. For whatever reason, they thought his pitch was in lock step with their approach.
Do you see the team mentality, @Mendes4Lyfe ?
Then, with this team in place, they go after writers…who knows how many they interviewed? Three? Five? Ten?
Bottom line is, these writers would have had to hear Villeneuve’s pitch and the writer would expand on these ideas with this team.
Again, from producers, to directors (and the higher ups), they ALL agreed Knight would be the best person to start this off, developing Villeneuve’s pitch.
It’s a team and there’s FULL TRANSPARENCY at each stage.
As an old-time Bond fan I understand that if you tried to just do a standard mission where M flings a dossier across the desk, that in this day and age it would come across a little weak on substance or lacking in sophisticated storytelling that people have come to expect. In many ways that was the trap that the Brosnan films fell into towards the end, and there are parts of TWINE and DAD that come off as a bit hokey and tired, such as Bond and Christmas Jones in the hotel room at the end of TWINE with M and John Cleese looking on in disbelief. That definitely feels dated by modern eyes, and also I think some of Brosnan and Moneypenny's interplay feels a bit dated, such as with the Molly Warmflash bit at the start of TWINE. What I get frustrated with is that it seems in order to add that extra ingredient that is needed they take a similar approach of putting Bond on the back foot, being out of step with MI6 (i.e trust issues) and exploring how the character deals with loss and trauma. I can understand how that would be a logical place to go, and I don't have a problem with that being the approach to most of the films and it can work and make great stories, it's just that that's the approach they have taken every single time, and to see it presented as each time as it isn't just the same thing just mixed around that we got last time gets really difficult. Sort of like if a relative got you the same thing for Christmas each year, each time it would get more and more difficult to feign surprise and delight, if you catch my meaning? Once again, I understand that Bond films can't just rattle off the formula without anything genuinely different about them, but I'd like to see them get more creative and inventive and what that "something extra" is exactly. Personally I don't think it would be a problem to do a mostly comedic Bond film, just so long as that film had some kind of conceit or story element that made it different than just merely the Paloma sequence stretched over two hours. Try different things stylistically or with form, there's a universe of stories you could tell that don't have to do with Bond overcoming trauma or the alienation of being a spy. But it's not worth getting worked up about anymore, I now consider Bond to be something in the past tense, I've come to that acceptance. Just like lots of STARS WARS fans consider the original trilogy as being its own thing, or Indiana Jones fans consider the original trilogy as sacred, and the other two as sperate, I'm at that stage with Bond. I have my films that I can always go back to and enjoy, and if a Bond film comes along in future that excites me and lives up to that it'll be a very unexpected treat, but I don't have any expectations anymore.
Ok, wow. That's a lot of text even for me...
Look, all I can say to you or anyone else is just wait and see what we get with this film. I don't know how much good this all is about a film that doesn't even exist as of yet! As I said this all feels like a self fulfilling prophecy of misery and an inability to enjoy a film if it doesn't match up to exactly what you want from a Bond movie. As I hinted before, if Berger was the director, I suspect you'd be going through the same existential cycle of doom.
But honestly, if it's gotten to the point where something like James Bond - hell, a James Bond film that doesn't exist yet - has been upsetting you, that's really not a good thing. It's a burden no one needs as a fan or viewer. So if this acceptance is beneficial to your mental health, or even opens up the faintest possibility the film might surprise you and you'll have fun when you eventually see it, perhaps that's a good thing.
For what it's worth, neither Villeneuve or Knight are favourite filmmakers of mine, although they're clearly talented. I've even disliked some of their work frankly. I can accept there's a possibility this film won't be my cup of tea necessarily, even if I don't know what we'll get from it. Ultimately I'll have to see it to have any opinion on it, and I'm looking forward to a new Bond film whatever way. It's no use worrying about it though. It's so out of our control.
But like I say, I'm not invested in Bond 26 I view it similarly to how a Ghostbusters fan views Frozen Empire.
No it isn't because the Snyder fans actively hate on James Gunn and the DCU - I'm just checked out. That's why I said I'm not invested, if a new film entertains me I'll be pleasantly surprised but I don't have any expectations. That's not how the Snyder Bros approach it at all. If your perception of me saying I'm not invested is that I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because I'm not getting what I want, or something to that effect, that's okay too. It doesn't matter either way, I'm not angry. I hope they somehow manage to resurrect what I loved about the films, but I'm passed the point of believing it's ever realistically going to happen. If you want to call that me being petty your welcome to, it's not massively important either way.
I get more a ‘existential gloom’ sense from you than being checked out honestly (I don’t think you’d have written that long post about what you see as Villeneuve’s stylistic shortcomings and how it’d supposedly not work in Bond if you didn’t care or didn’t have expectations).
I’m not saying you’re throwing your toys out of the pram or that you’re angry, I’m just saying I think you’re setting yourself up not to like this film based on assumptions you have about the director (I don’t even know how many of his films you’ve seen or what you actually think of them. At least beyond all this melancholy about ‘psychological complexity’). That’s why I’m comparing it to how some fans approached the latest Superman film. They’d already made up their minds without having seen the film. I can acknowledge you’d prefer to like this film, but I honestly don’t think you’re in the mindset to do that as of now. I actually feel a bit sorry for you, and as I said I’m not a big Villeneuve fan!
It’s also a nice way of bringing things full circle for the Brolins seeing as how his Dad could’ve been Bond in 83.
Absolutely 👍🏻!
The reasons that I enjoy Bond films has been gone for a while, and while I didn't like QoS or Skyfall (and found CR to be a great entry but not a masterpiece) at the time I didn't mind too much because there was a kind of recognised rule that this was the start of a new timeline and they were going through an experimental phase. Indeed, Bond walking into M's familiar office at the end of Skyfall seemed to signal that Bond angst had been sorted out and he was ready to get back to being effortlessly suave secret agent that we first saw at the poker table in Dr No. I was so hyped for SP that I even convinced myself I enjoyed it for weeks after, sort of a Phantom Menace syndrome. By the time the Bond 25 trailers came around my senses were peaked for any recurring themes or situations, and sure enough hearing Nomi say "the one that works" and Bond turning the corner to see Madeline and saying "I'm not gonna lose.... Control", I could see the writing was on the wall and it was going to be more of Bond being on an interpersonal downturn.
To be fair I will be looking for things to enjoy in Bond 26, and I've already said that if nothing else Villeneuve can bring that sense of Lewis Gilbert scope that we've never truly come close too since, I'm sure it will have some lush visuals. Story and pacing wise, I don't expect it to match what I love and want to see about Bond and that's based on everything I know about Villeneuves work and what is consistent throughout it. Can I be pleasantly surprised? Ofcourse, I just don't have the EXPECTATION that I will enjoy the film, that's not the same thing as going in wanting to hate it.
Well, I certainly hope you enjoy it when it's finished/comes out.
And when Craig came he ultimately became my favourite itineration to date.
In a long running series like this, it’ll have its own peaks and valleys, and long-time fans will also have their personal ones when it comes to 25 films.
In the end, though, as a whole: it’s a damned fine series, no mater what my own personal peaks and valleys are.
I've certainly got my preferences about Bond films and have a stronger attachment to some more than others, but I've never felt any sense of depression towards films I'm not as keen on. Hell, I gave DAD another rewatch last night (which I know is a film some people have strong feelings about to put it lightly) and I came away with a relatively positive impression.