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
Even if that's correct, if those 2 movies represent a refreshing change of pace, then I say it's very worth considering him.
2 of those 2.5 were co-written by Simon Pegg, so I still don't really see a vision of Wright's Bond that isn't all surface jokes and Fourth-wall breaking crap.
@LucknFate You've said it all. I couldn't agree more. Why would I want an ultra-playful director like Wright near Bond? I enjoy Wright's films with an ice cream. But he's clearly not Bond material. I'm really surprised @Mendes4Lyfe who wants the best for James Bond, wants a director like that...Wow!
I know this forum loves to hate on Edgar Wright but this is just incorrect.
You can say that Villeneuve is more talented, and rightfully so, but he's also in a similar mold to other recent directors and every so often there needs to be a change of course.
I think it's tempting to want to see wha hypotheticalt directors will bring to Bond based on our preferences, but in practice it might not be the case. I have my own issues with Wright as a director, and I don't see anything interesting he'd bring to Bond.
But it wouldn't have to be one-dimensional just not have the psychological aspect being foregrounded and made the central focus.
For instance, in The Last Crusade Indiana Jones could not be described as one dimensional, we see in his interactions with his father that they don't see eye to eye, and it was hard on him to grow up with such a distant father, but at the same time the gravity of that doesn't supplant the overall light and adventuring tone of the quest for the grail. I don't know why people always compare something having a fun tone with being worthless when there's so many examples of classic movies that can both be playful AND keep an audience invested emotionally. Forget about Wright, that's just my suggestion, but it can be anyone in that mold. Basically I say that we've had enough takes of trying to see underneath the character at his core, and doing something enough times eventually it becomes tired and stale. In any creative enterprise you have to stay ahead of your audience, otherwise you won't keep people engaged for long.
I think when people write these films they just focus on what's most interesting in terms of character and how to tell a story. However well that works out depends, and it's subjective to a point, but I think that's generally the approach, whoever's directing.
I think a big part of creating any Bond film is making it fun and exciting too. All Bond films are I'd say. Just that their stories and the approach to them can differ (ie. it can more espionage orientated like FRWL, or bigger and more outlandish like MR). It's tricky to say exactly what could work without getting into specifics in that sense.
But... that's clearly not the direction they've chosen.
I dunno, maybe I'm an outdated fan but going around the same merry-go-round of trust issues and "the shadows" and going rogue is getting played out at this point. There's just nothing clever or original about it anymore. If that's all that Bond is going to be, then I guess me and many fans of my ilk will have little reason to stick around in a few years. Bond is capable of being played as a morose, grounded figure but he's also capable of being played with bravado and a wry smile. I think every so often you have to be keep things fresh and keep the audience guessing.
Sounds like Craig's Bond if I'm honest...
I'm sure it'll be fine. I think the next film will be different enough from the last three, and it's a new era anyway.
No, and I think it'd be an odd route for Bond to have gone in now, even considering how different Superman and Bond are.
Why is it an odd route to go in?
I don't think there'd be any need or the right circumstances to go in that creative direction. The last era was generally well received and even praised for bringing maturity to Bond. But it still managed to give us a good bit of fun, outlandishness, and many of the good old tropes of classic Bond films by its last ones. It's like I always say, I don't think this is a course correction film even under Amazon. It's a fresh start that'll be different, but it can build on what came before to do its own thing. They can even be quite bold potentially and take some creative risks.
Superman I can understand needing a course correction even if just to distinguish it from the Snyder films (I probably view Man of Steel how some people misremember the Craig films - ie. a bit too dark and depressing). Superman also isn't quite as big a character internationally compared to Bond (and is quite different anyway), so they probably felt it best to go 'back to basics' with that lighter tone. I think Bond 26 is more akin to The Batman coming after the Christopher Nolan films in its own way.
And The Batman is another film which personally doesn't leave much of an impression specifically because it doesn't go anywhere new with it's tone. Sure it was decently successful and liked, but I don't see it having the cultural staying power of the dark knight, I sort of have a "been there done that" feeling towards the film.
You might be right about Bond 26, obviously Denis Villeneuve is not the director you hire for a fun time, but any creative enterprise has to stay ahead of the audience, and audiences want freshness. If you specifically ruling out things because received wisdom tells you they "aren't needed, then eventually the audience will begin to develop a hunger for those things specifically because they're out of bounds. Because they are taboo, they become exciting to an audience in search of a fresh experience. That's what happened with Casino Royale after Die Another Day.
I personally thought it was great, and that it was able to create a very distinct world/version of the character that had traces of the previous era. As you said many people liked it and it was successful (I'm know many thought it better than TDK - I certainly do).
I'm suppose neither of us can really talk about its 'staying power' at this point, although three years on it seems to be doing fine.... I reckon it'll be remembered as a great Batman instalment with some influential cinematography at the very least. It's also a different film to TDK. I guess it'd be a bit like if Bond 26 was successful and well received, but CR had a slightly higher RT score or whatever, or it comes just short of SF's box office draw. Doesn't mean it'd be a failure at all.
I can relate to some extent. I mean, I didn't personally like the new Superman film at all (which is a shame because I thought I would). But I can acknowledge they made a good choice going the different tonal direction they did, even if the story itself didn't do much for me.
I'm sure they will eventually drift towards a different type of Bond story, regardless of what that means. It just depends on what creative route they feel best to take. That's all it comes down to I think, not taboos or some cosmic Bond pendulum. I don't think it's a case of anything being out of bounds, but what route I'd say (purely by instinct by the way) they'll feel best to take.
I'd also say the producers clearly hired Villeneuve for a reason. I'm going to presume a lot of it was due to whatever pitch/vision he gave, and that they told him roughly what route they were going in creatively. What's to say that vision isn't fresh compared to other ones? And in fairness we don't know exactly what we're going to get.
I mean, you could just as easily argue 'received wisdom' could have pointed to that lighthearted version of Bond 26 with Edgar Wright directing. In fact go back earlier this year and the rumours were that that's what Amazon were going to give us! Ironically it didn't sound very fresh in itself, and I think to give us something new anyway it'll require something more specific than just 'lighthearted self parody'.
That's only because you're choosing to perceive it as something hollow and lacking artistic merit. Looking at the examples I've given, does The Last Crusade come off as "self parody" (maybe you could say that Marcus Brody becomes a parody of himself in raiders but that is a slight mistep in an otherwise extraordinarily well balanced film). Does The Last Crusade lack artistic merit, and just come off as basic mass-produced slop like Jurassic World or Force Awakens. No, obviously not.
I feel like because I'm in favour of a movie that is broad and crowd-pleasing (like the Paloma sequence), that people perceive that to mean a cynical corporate vehicle with weightless characters, and that's not it at all. You can have a film like The Last Crusade or TSWLM which is popcorn spectacle with a good balance of characterisation, Thats still ultimately about Bond being sent on a mission saving the day and making it out with the girl.
I didn't say lighthearted meant shallow. I'm saying to create a fresh Bond movie it requires specifics of story and character we have no concept of at the moment. We're talking very generally and hypothetically about tone. It may not even be a straightforward case of being 'lighthearted' or 'dark'. We simply don't know the approach to story, character, or plot they'll take. That's what it'll come down to.
Sure, anything can be lacking in strong characters/story, or feel soulless or corporate, and vice versa. And all Bond movies should be crowd pleasing (that's the nature of them, regardless of what they do with story and characters). I mean, we all want Bond films that have popcorn spectacle with good characterisation, surely? But that can be many different things.
I'd love a Bond film that aims to capture the scale, excitement, and thrills of, say, TSWLM. In fact I'd be very happy if they did that with Bond 26. But like any new movie they'd need to put their own spin on things and give us some those impactful scenes, characters, and story. Like any other film it won't succeed just because it's 'lighthearted' but because of the sum of its parts.
I wouldn't want a full Bond movie of the Paloma sequence with a few dramatic scenes thrown in, for example (it'd potentially get a bit dull after a while, and I think that scene lacks in genuine tension anyway, but it works when put in the middle of NTTD). Something like the new Superman film would also feel wrong I think, as Bond is a different beast, and that film feels consciously cartoonish in a way I don't think Bond is.
Basically I'm saying: depends on what they do, but I can understand not going for the complete tonal shift implied.