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 must admit I can’t see Villeneuve doing a straightforward macguffin chase: there’s going to be some meat to get his teeth into.
I can see a McGuffin being used as the kickstarter to the plot, but I suppose that’s the same case with SF and there’s certainly lots going on! Even FRWL has a few layers to it beyond the Lektor. Anyway, with a Bond story they’ll generally rely on those similar but broad set ups (at some point in the first act something will get stolen, or someone important killed, or perhaps Bond will get involved with a woman or villain and that’ll get things going, or perhaps he’ll attain something unexpected during a mission… that sort of thing). Agreed, there’ll definitely be more going on in the story.
We’ll hear at some point what they’ve decided to do. I can imagine there’ll be that tinge of futuristic technology/that 5 minutes into the future element we get with modern Bond, but with a new take on it. I mean, many of Villeneuve’s films definitely have that going for them - how technology influences character/their worlds. It would make sense. It may even be a bit ‘out there’ I guess you could say - something I’m sure some of us here may not fully enjoy in a similar way some didn’t like the nanobots in NTTD! But we’ll see. And as you hinted I think this will be a relatively meaty film in terms of character - I think we will get some form of personal conflict with Bond throughout this adventure, and I think they’ll try to craft an interesting Bond girl and villain who challenge him. At the very least there’ll be more going on beneath the surface.
Well, as far as any of us are concerned we know absolutely nothing about Villeneuve's meeting with the producers and what they discussed. Nor subsequent meetings with Knight. We have no idea why they were picked specifically (yes, they’re established names, but why were they picked over many other big names? What did they say or pitch that sold them? What did Heyman and Pascal have in mind before finding their director and in turn writer?) I don’t think you can make those claims definitively, especially considering him and his wife are also executive producers. For all we know it’s very much a Heyman/Pascal led idea with heavy developmental input from Villeneuve and Knight… so a collaborative effort, albeit one with a hierarchy. They’ll all bring something to it.
For what it’s worth any director/writer has to share that creative vision for the project they’re working on. They should always bring worthwhile input even if they don’t have final cut. And also for what it’s worth technological threats in modern Bond is pretty standard, and if that’s a route they wanted to go down I can very much see that being a big appeal towards hiring Villeneuve, especially if he came up with specific ideas that resonated with them.
As I said, some of us here will complain, but it makes no difference. And we don’t know what the specifics of this hypothetical take on a Bond story is, or if it’ll come to fruition (although if it’s a modern Bond, which I presume it is, some element of technology will be there, and I have no doubt every one of these creatives will be asking themselves what scares people in today’s world that they could use as the basis of a villain’s caper, much in the same way EON claimed to do in years prior. Not to say we’ll get a billionaire wanting to create a killer AI - although I suppose it’s possible and I guess could work, obvious as it is - but that’s probably how they’ll approach it).
At any rate even if it was quite fantastical they could always go the other way and go more ‘down to earth’ at some point. That’s what Moore’s era did.
Well, we’ll see what we get at any rate. I think it’s tempting for us out of the know to project what we want onto this collaboration at the current time, as well as what we want each person to bring. Ultimately in practice they’ll all be working on this film and there will be some form of collaboration (ie. As each draft is written the director and producer give notes on what they think should be changed etc. Even if Villeneuve comes into that process a bit later - although I see no reason that will be the case even with his shooting commitments - it’ll still be Pascal and Heyman fulfilling that role with much of Villeneuve’s early notes/possibly ideas - or even pitch - in mind. It’s not just Steven Knight coming up with a script all on his own and then Villleneuve going off to shoot it. Things like gags, action sequences, one liners etc will probably come from all sides, just as much as characterisation, themes etc. It’ll be Knight’s job to make it into a coherent script and offer anything else creatively, not be there to counteract any of Villeneuve’s undesirable tendencies).
As for the first point, it’s just not as simple as that. With Bond it’s always a case of being the same but different, and it’s those differences where each creative individual/their spin on those tropes come in. If this new, modern Bond film is going to incorporate some sort of technology in its villain’s plot (which is not unlikely) then Villeneuve is a very suited director to help develop that based on his previous work and could offer something useful creatively. As I said, what they have as the foundation of this script may well be from Villeneuve's pitch for this job. It’s all for sure been discussed before Knight was even hired, and he’ll be the one to develop any ideas they have further into a finished script. Villeneuve's most likely not a director for hire in this sense, but a key member of the creative team from development to post production. Essentially he's doing the job a director should do. He doesn't just show up, shoot the film with his cerebral tone, and then leave.
I quite agree. This will have to demarcate itself from what's gone before. Both of them already have some meaty ideas, I suppose ;) Or just "the one" that is a stellar idea.
Well, it needs to be one of the best Bond films ever, I certainly hope they have some stellar stuff up their sleeves!
It needs to make an impact, no doubt. But even by Bond's measure success is relative to some extent (my controversial take - this film doesn't need to make a billion dollars at the B/O, even if that'd be great. It's very likely it'll go under that figure even if it's a success financially. Establishing a charismatic new Bond actor/Bond world, creating a foundation and anticipation for subsequent films, gaining critical and audience praise etc. is much more important. It has a good chance of doing that incidentally, even if some may have criticisms of the movie).
They don't need to worry about being in the shadow of what came before. They just need to make the best Bond film they can and maximise its success by how they present this film. And that seems to be the case. It's for us to judge where it sits amongst the other movies, and more importantly for viewers both old and new to enjoy.
I can imagine it'll be the sort of thing where amongst these forums its reputation won't set in immediately though. We're a hard bunch to please ;) As I said Amazon will need to prove they can make a successful Bond movie - so critically praised, profitable, and with good audience feedback, especially towards the new actor. I'm sure they'll drum up the marketing.
That's a good point, Amazon wants prestige more than money, for the sake of the brand. And Bond is the flagship.
Yeah. Because Amazon knows a Bond film by default, is already a financial success.
Very true. I think mostly because his two main leads were young people and funnily enough, Villeneuve built a very serious tone around Chalamet & Zendaya and teens still showed up and loved the films.
Yeah I think you're right. I hate to say it but if I were an exec I might look at that and think a young Bond might not be a bad idea. I'm not against it.
I agree. I want a young James Bond too.
I don’t think picking an actor below 32 or whatever is the key to a successful Bond in itself. Zendaya and Chalamet already had some fame/appeal with their previous roles (particularly Euphoria and of course Spiderman which were very big. Even Call Me By Your Name was a bit of a cult film).
I’m sure if the next actor were some 26 year unknown they’d have a tougher time selling them as Bond compared to a more established mid to late 30s actor who younger audiences might recognise more readily. But it depends on the actor I suppose. Maybe that 26 year old unknown is worth putting that extra effort into.
I think they can have a younger actor without pandering to a youth market.
You do realize the Kipling was quoted by Fleming?
Agree 100% with everything here.
Oh, sure. I was thinking about a young actor that can really act.
I find ‘pandering’ an odd word, as if appealing to an audience is a bad thing.
I do actually think it is a bad thing. Audiences and masses should learn from art, not the other way around. Depiction and context is one thing, as art is of its time, but pandering is an instrument of capitalism, and adds nothing to the artistic momentum.