› ›

Denis Villeneuve Announced as Bond 26 Director

1…101112131416»

Comments

  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,721
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Dyson forgives nonsense when he likes the movie. He's not a very reliable critic.

    Don’t we all when it comes to Bond? 😉 I think he’s pretty good at those reviews (even his NTTD one has some great points, as much as I’ve come to call his final argument against it nonsense).
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,310
    Villeneuve's not the man for light-hearted and witty, though, right? Choosing him to direct must be a pointer towards the kind of film they want to make, no?
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited August 8 Posts: 734
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    While they aren’t exactly like TSWLM or OP, I’d probably say the Marvel films are the closest of today’s blockbusters. They’re usually lighthearted and witty but not at the expense of dramatic stakes.

    Personally I do find that Marvel movies have quite often promoted humour at the expense of the stakes. It's a tightrope act to get right, and not as easy as they made it look, when at their best.

    For example I liked "The Avengers" and have rewatched it many times, but not "Age of Ultron", which I will probably never rewatch.

    Ditto for the Spiderman sequels "No Way Home" and "Far From Home" which are increasingly more "Disney-fied" and unconvincing in the "stakes" department.

    While I enjoyed the humour of the Deadpool films from Fox, I always felt they were weak in "stakes" department. The movies never made me feel like Deadpool was in any real jeopardy, because he never stops making wiseass comments and if he's not scared why should I be?

    "Guardians 2" is another where the "stakes" side was wanting IMO, but they recovered strongly in the third leg of the trilogy.
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I’m not saying Bond should copy those films nor would I want them too (I hate the type of humor presented in the Marvel movies) but they’re the type of lighthearted affairs that I’d say are the most comparable to Moore’s tenure.

    Comparable to the Moore serious Rog efforts, rather than the Moore silly ones, maybe, but better at maintaining a consistent tone, where the humour isn't jarring and doesn't break the spell, in the way a penny whistle or a Tarzan yell does.
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I think Hollywood has pulled itself out of its “dark and gritty” phase and that post 911 realism popularized by Bourne and expanded upon by the likes of Nolan’s Batman and Craig’s Bond has somewhat settled down. Heck we even saw this in Craig’s final three Bond films where they become much more fantastical. In that sense, I don’t think going back to the likes of TSWLM is a bad idea - it’s certainly no less valid than using Craig’s era as a reference. But ultimately I want something that’s original and that I haven’t really seen from the series before.

    IMO at this stage of the Espionage genre's evolution it's hard to imagine there is anything really "original" left to discover, the best we can hope for is to dress up a tried and tested idea in different clothes, which is where the new director (and actor) comes in...

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,830
    Venutius wrote: »
    Villeneuve's not the man for light-hearted and witty, though, right? Choosing him to direct must be a pointer towards the kind of film they want to make, no?

    I’m not sure. He might be “professional” enough to slip into the Bond world without breaking a sweat. After all, that light-hearted, witty Bond flavour isn’t something the director cooks up alone. It’s the result of screenwriters, actors, producers, and a whole team throwing ingredients into the mix. One thing you can say about Bond films: they’re never the work of a lone genius. So whatever Villeneuve’s usual style, he won’t be the only one deciding the tone.

    I’m no insider, but my guess is that Villeneuve was picked not because he’s shown a passion for spy thrillers, but because he can wrangle big, expensive franchises and actually bring them home on time, on budget, and without driving the producers up the wall. That’s no small feat. In this business, it’s often less about showing off your love for a genre, and more about proving you can deliver a glossy, high-profile production without chaos. But I could be wrong. ;-)
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 734
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I think Hollywood has pulled itself out of its “dark and gritty” phase and that post 911 realism popularized by Bourne and expanded upon by the likes of Nolan’s Batman and Craig’s Bond has somewhat settled down. Heck we even saw this in Craig’s final three Bond films where they become much more fantastical. In that sense, I don’t think going back to the likes of TSWLM is a bad idea - it’s certainly no less valid than using Craig’s era as a reference. But ultimately I want something that’s original and that I haven’t really seen from the series before.

    The dark and gritty still seems to a force, particularly down at DTV level (or whatever that is called nowadays) and evedences itself higher up in the form of John Wick / Equaliser type films

    But post marvel there has also been a strong trend of "comedy action", where directors lean into the humour, often at the expense of the "stakes"

    Too often the villain is too comedic, or the script will contain twists which fundamentally undermine the story, like Ryan Gosling's recent attempts

    I've given up hope of The Rock ever doing an action movie as fundamentally sound as "Walking Tall" again

    The Stath also struggles to get the formula right most of the time

    Dodgy days out there in action movie land I'm sad to say...
Sign In or Register to comment.