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
The email leaks are an interesting little insight into what is essentially the producer's side of a major film. From what I remember about them Sony and MGM executives were increasingly worried about the budget (at one point it was well over £300 Million, which is insane) and the quality of the script, presumably worrying they weren't going to make much money off this film, so this probably spurred on a lot of the interventions and need for rewrites. It's a particular situation and the tighter deadline/problems behind the scenes didn't help, but executives and producers can have a major impact on story and script with these films. Rightly or wrongly.
It'd be difficult for a director like Nolan probably. Mendes himself has recently gone on record about his frustrations working on his two Bond films, which is understandable. Of course the Danny Boyle situation seems to stem from the fact that he didn't want another scriptwriter to be brought on (while I understand there's always going to be sides taken with these things - the producers stifling the creative director loyal to his writer being one - it's not always a bad idea bringing in a fresh writer on these types of films when needed, and from what I can tell Boyle's Bond 25 needed this). Like I said, half the battle is actually being able to work with the producers and get to grips with what they want creatively. Always has been the case with Bond films.
Villeneuve is a more likely candidate than Nolan in my opinion, but I'm still not sure he's quite right. Like I said he's a very cerebral director, and his films - well made as they are - aren't quite what we expect from a Bond film in both pace and tone. The lack of humour criticism might also be applicable, and I'm just not sure we'd get something exciting from him. Maybe something well thought out and beautifully shot, but not exciting. His films also don't tend to make large amounts of money at the box office, so I think that would be a worry for executives in the sense his Bond film might not have a broad appeal.
Like I said, I think the way to go isn't to get some sort of 'visionary' director on board per say, but prioritise directors who have experience working on smaller, well received genre films (ideally horror or thriller) who are able to bring fresh ideas to the table and work with the producers. Ideally the budget for the next film will be stripped back a bit too to give some sort of parameters to work within (so maybe a £200 Million budget as opposed to a £302 Million one).
I mean, Demange is certainly moving up 'the ladder'. I enjoyed '71. I do think directors experienced with genre pieces, who aren't necessarily big name 'auteurs', are the best bet though.
I don't need those blockbuster directors (Those directors whose names were really noisy), though both Nolan and Villeneuve are great (if one's idea may look into adapting some (or few) Fleming novels like Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever, or Live and Let Die for example, then they would be my choice as they could do justice to the source material, and adapting them greatly on screen).
But if original Bond stories, then I would rather have those art house directors, the ones who have real vision for the franchise and not just for more popularity and money.
The ones who could create great quality of Bond movies.
I actually think, if back then, I think Francis Ford Coppola would have made a good or if not, a great Bond director, I know he's directing a new movie, Megalopolis despite of his age.
He's the director behind the new Indiana Jones and these other films.
Edgar Wright might give us something interesting. Would love to see Park Chan Wook's hypothetical Bond film but I know that likely won't happen.
Even with incompetent writing, at least the battle sequences in that still manage to be outstanding and literally suffocating.
Yeah. But his lighting style though.
That's the thing though. I do like his directing style. He knows how to build tension and create nice visuals and action scenes. I don't know why he enjoys such lighting techniques though.
He loves to dim a lot, that the viewer might have to squint to see clearly.
Oh, I get you now. To be fair that's happening a lot in film/TV nowadays as a cinematography choice.
True. Reeves' The Batman is an example.
Yes, The Batman has some very low key lighting. That said I'd argue that film does have colour to it- ie. you get some warm orange colours towards the end with the sunrise/the city not raining consistently, moments of rather striking red, neon etc. So it's not quite as monochromatic or grey (one could say lifeless) as some of the things with low key lighting one sees in TV/film nowadays. You also have quite a lot of shallow focus on characters (especially Batman) and while I won't go into it technically, there's certainly a 'texture' to that film that gives you that sense of rain-soaked, dirty streets which is much less 'clean' and sharp looking than other examples. So it can be an interesting choice.
Not that a Bond film will (or should) ever have quite as consistent low key lighting anyway.
Yeah. It could work in other films. But not too sure about a Bond film.
Perhaps that it should be part of the PTS build up, walking through a casino, gentlemen's club or on a stealth mission. Not showing his face until he sits down at a bridge, baccarat table or faces the villain.
Yeah, that would work. All the Bonds except Moore & Craig had that style. Although, the stylish reveal of Craig's Bond before the car chase in QoS could easily stand as his first Bond film. Maybe Campbell tried that style in CR but didn't go with it? Because he did something similar with Brosnan's Bond. I think it would have been cool to see Craig's Bond hands assembling his gun, with close-up shots of his eyes, as Dryden used the elevator up, then of course...reveal Craig's Bond face immediately he utters his first Bondian words.
The Cuba one shot even more so.
I was so excited to see it after some initial reviews seemed entirely blown away by it, only to feel vastly underwhelmed. It's not even a proper one shot and it's just them heading up to the hotel room - really nothing special. Also, for all the marketing I recall there being around Stephanie Sigman's new Bond girl, I was shocked to see her enter and exit exclusively in this moment.
It's the music and Craig's super confident stroll that make it work for me. It's impressive that they managed to shoot it in two different countries and make it seem seamless. But yes, in the grand scheme of things, there are more impressive oners out there.
Still, I always took it as a promise for a film that wasn't followed through on afterwards.