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
Oh, please. Interest for UNCLE on streaming ? As indicated above in response, a thirsty man in the desert gets excited for mud. UNCLE was terribly dull, drab and disinteresting, despite an interesting and gorgeous cast. Going with the "Italian thrillers of the 1960s" as "inspiration" was weeeeakkk....SPECTRE didn't hit people the way Skyfall did, but is so superior to UNCLE that a "comparison" would be silly. As one may note from the sequels to UNCLE - oh, wait...there were none. Their protagonist lead actors were just starting out in what might have lead to a series of films, not finishing up, and yet...crickets. With good reason.
If Pemberton signed up to Bond I wouldn't be upset.
Plots with "surprise" twists for their own sake, which often undermine everything that has gone before and spoil the whole experience.
Villains that are either illogically brutal, comical or inept and thus not a convincing threat to the hero / heroine.
They just can't seem to get the balance right anymore
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/james-bond-denis-villeneuve-director-1236441253/
Edit:
@peter, weren't we talking about this in the thread not long ago, before Broccoli and Wilson cashed out?
All the right words, right there. I already love where he's at.
I'd say...he improved upon the source, respectfully. Which is always polemical, but interesting, to say the least. I'm calm. The only thing that worries me, really, is the cast, mainly Bond himself :)
Yes, I completely disagree with you there, personally I didn't like many of the choices Villeneuve made in his version of Dune, leaving out fundamentally important scenes and character development in order to simplify the story, which made the result bland and generic, instead of unique and distinctive.
However his Dune has the advantage over the Lynch version, which could not manage to cram the story into one film successfully, and had some very dodgy special effects. The makeup was outstanding, but the model work was embarassing, following in the wake of Star Wars, not even Gerry Anderson level.
The TV version of Dune is probably the best so far, from a story telling perspective, but even then they made a few changes which were not an improvement IMO and had a weak ending. It only had 90s TV level special effects, but allowing for that it was a respectable effort.
And let’s not forget, Dune isn’t just any adaptation. It’s a heavy lift. So compared to James Bond, I think it’s a bit apples and oranges. Bond isn’t a philosophical epic layered with invented religions, ecological metaphors, and dream logic, it’s a well-established cinematic universe with different demands. If Denis could take Dune and turn it into something that resonated with both longtime fans and general audiences, I’m pretty confident he’ll bring depth and a fresh visual grammar to Bond without needing to fight the same structural battles.
His Dune may not be perfect (although I think it is personally), but the fact that it works as well as it does is proof enough of his capability, especially when it comes to adapting material with respect and vision.
I agree, Bond should be much simpler to deal with from a character and story development standpoint. No need to try and explain Bond further, we already know who he is and what he's about, we just need an ingenious plot to put him in.
Hopefully take a day off from the personal tribulations and angst of Craig-Bond
I'm not meaning to question his respect for the material, he's certainly no JJ Abrams or Michael Bay. I just think there's still a far better version of "Dune" yet to be made. (Perhaps there is a Dune thread out there where I can explain my reservations in detail sometime, however I've engaged in such a discussion before and neither party changed their opinion of the film, as is usually the case in subjective matters).
As for Dune, I get it, it’s not a definitive version for everyone. But for me, Villeneuve struck a really compelling balance between fidelity and cinematic clarity. Still, I’d be genuinely interested to read your take if you ever post it elsewhere. Thoughtful criticism is always worth engaging with, especially on a work as complex and open to interpretation as Dune.
Yeah I’m not sure I really want a bog standard mission film. I love the Indiana Jones films, and every one of those features a milestone in Indy’s life from which he emerges changed in some way, and I like that a lot, I think it makes them stronger. I don’t see why Bond can’t have that (no, I’m not asking to see him team up with his dad before someone says that).
Would be very awkward teaming up with a 20-year-old corpse.
Agreed with your post though.
Remind me, what were the milestones in Indy's life in 1 & 2 please
In Raiders, Indy’s views on religion and the supernatural are changed forever. He’s the skeptic that becomes a believer, not a man of faith, but a historian who understands that there’s more to history than mere relics.
In Temple, Indy overcomes fear and the supernatural to become something more than an archaeologist or adventurer. He embraces his role as a hero when no one else has the willpower or the inclination to save a village of children from slavery.
The Bond franchise shouldn’t be a sandbox that’s closed off from modern tastes or modern ways of telling a story. Just as the technology in making a Bond film evolves, so should the techniques of moving that narrative. I don’t see how Bond on a mission and Bond learning or growing or reflecting on that mission are mutually exclusive. Fleming did it.
In Raiders he's reunited with Marion, who he comes to realise is the most important person to him, and he also travels from being a sceptic to understanding there's unknown power out there; in Temple we're introduced to the selfish earlier version of Indy who is seeking only 'fortune and glory'- but he becomes a more altruistic, heroic character who chooses to save the children.
Raiders probably does have the least development for him of all of them, but it's still more than Bond undergoes in any movie pre-2006 really. Even in LTK I'm not sure you could say he learns anything or changes.
However, Bond being fleshed out through the film doens't have to mean the villain will have some sort of personal connection to him, those things aren't mutually inclusive. We'll just have to wait and see.
But the thing is, a milestone in every film firstly will impact the character in silly ways (once you've done marriage, a child and death, the milestones possible are only really limited after that). Bond fought recently with his long-lost adopted brother in a twist most people found silly. At some point while trying for a milestone in every film, the film is sent in weird directions.
On top of that, I don't think Bond is a character for the sort of character development sought after for here. I mean looking at the best novels, FRWL, MR, and OHMSS, what does Bond even learn in those stories. The only time Bond learns something is in CR, where he learns that his job is not about principles but about people and not to underestimate women (and perhaps the importance of trusty friends).
I feel like I read different novels? In each of those books, Bond makes mistakes and learns about his own vulnerabilities with regard to his career or his job or both.
It's those vulnerabilities that make Bond appealing as a character. Even something like Moore's reaction after the centrifuge scene in the film MR show a vulnerability.
That's character development.
What does Bond learn in those novels then? And not in a "next time take the plane" way, but in a long-lasting way that we can see in later novels? Bond changes, sure, but not in a way easily attributed to certain events. Bond changes with age and fatigue, as most people do.
Bond making mistakes or being vulnerable isn't character development. It could spark character development and change, but making mistakes isn't an act of development in itself. If Bond makes a mistake but doesn't change at all, he hasn't developed by definition. For example; Bond is scared by turbulence on Friday the 13th in FRWL. However, he continues to take planes afterward. There's no development there. We just learn more about Bond.
And anyway, I'm not anti-development either. Past stories can and sometimes should impact the way Bond acts. But I don't think every film should be a milestone in Bond's life.
Yes, absolutely, @echo , I heard deafening rumblings last February that that's who EoN had their eyes on to resurrect Bond. I posted as such and got raked for it, lol.
In the end he got it.
I am sure that the opportunity to set the look and tone of the new era was irresistible to him. I also deeply respect that he has been unafraid to follow up the titans Ridley Scott and David Lynch. Bond 26 will be confidently directed.
I think Jonathan Nolan would have been an interesting choice (he does the action/emotion/cerebral balance better than Christopher) but he was probably too much of a gamble as a director.
I don't rate Berger as highly. I loved Deutschland '83 (at least the first season) but Conclave was again too much of a cerebral puzzle piece being carried to greatness by some of the best actors in the business.
Pro-Brittania? Explain.