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 can imagine them completely reworking them in some way. So in that way we might get something less directly referential to the imagery of past Bond films than the Craig era, nor necessarily something as 'formula' breaking. It'll instead be a new take (probably even quite a radical one) on what we see as a Bond adventure. It'll a different type of Bond in a different context, with those broad tropes reinterpreted, but still fundamentally there perhaps. I know it's a film I harp on about, but it could well be a bit like The Batman reworking certain tropes for that character/world, essentially keeping them the same in spirit, but doing something different - ie. the Bat cave is now an abandoned underground train station, Wayne manor is now Wayne Tower and in the heart of the city, Bruce Wayne is an isolated loner without the playboy persona yet, Riddler is now a sort of Zodiac-esque serial killer, and Gotham is a sort of Seven-esque Neo noir city. Complete speculation incidentally, but I can imagine a not dissimilar creative instinct driving Bond 26 and that 'same but different' approach. It would certainly give us some creative reworkings.
It's likely because of Roger Deakins, but Skyfall really looks like a Denis Villeneuve movie. If you were to show someone the trailer and ask who they think the director is, I'm sure the most frequent guess would far and away be him.
Pass.
I wouldn't be opposed to it. In fact, it might be the best case scenario for a Villinueve film.
I had seen "Layer Cake" and felt he could play the part but felt he was not classically handsome enough. Too much running around, not enough cool, assured sophisticated gentleman spy.................too much like Bourne Identity and less like TB. Now that does not mean I disliked the film and Bond's return to Fleming. The Craig films were just a little too different from what I personally like, as a Connery era fan. I went along for the ride but it wasn't my 007. At least there were no double take pigeons.
QUOTE:
My dad grew up a huge Connery Bond fan. He was angry when Craig was announced. I had to do some serious convincing to get him to see CR with me while on Christmas leave. Id already seen it twice.
He walked out totally blown away[/quote]
Exactly...........................it took a lot of convincing to get your dad to see CR. Will DC fans have to be convinced to give the new Bond a chance?
Yeah. Even the Jellyfish fight sequence looks like something Villeneuve can direct...with the neon lights and all that.
I don't think we're getting a 'spiritual sequel' to SF or anything. But I do agree Villeneuve's films aren't actually far off the later Bond films in many respects.
You mean like Hinx? And Paloma?
So close! You're thinking of the actors, sweety. The characters of Paloma and Hinx are not from Blade Runner.
Sure. ;) Different characters obviously, but you've got villains and hench-women in that film who wouldn't look entirely out of place in Bond (obviously with story adjustments). K is even a sort of blunt instrument who questions his job. Just write that with Bond's humour and love of adventure, and that's really not miles away from a Fleming-esque take on Bond that could be great.
That film's growing on me on rewatches for sure. There's something quite Bondian about a lot of it (I quite like the fact that K's doing investigations/detective work too in that Noir-ish way, similar to how Bond would in, say, the earliest movies and Fleming. I'd love if we got a bit more of that in Bond 26).
But yeah, whatever we eventually get, that's the film that gives me the most confidence in Villeneuve. For anyone who's maybe not watched it or rewatched it recently I'd actually recommend giving it a look. So many scenes in there that I can imagine more or less in a Bond film, and there's even a few one liners and some dark humour in there that show Villeneuve can handle these things. At the very least he managed to give us a sequel to a very distinctive film with his own spin on it. Surely that counts for something?
1. Does Villeneuve GET what makes a Bond film work?
2. Can he do dynamic, cinematic and exciting action scenes that aren't too grounded and slow.
3. Does Villeneuve understand that Bond films don't need to be weighted down with drama, and he has to approach it as cinematic spectacle. There's needs to be some crowd-pleasing moments.
I would say to all those -
1) He's actually spoken quite a bit about Bond movies, and I suspect a lot of what went into Blade Runner 2049 was very much inspired by James Bond films. I suspect he has a good understanding of what would make a Bond film work, or at the very least is going to be doing some deep thinking about it for this job!
2) I suppose you can criticise, say, Blade Runner 2049 for having a slow pace at points (although that was the case with the original, and I think it's done consciously). My God those action scenes/fights are thrilling and tense in my opinion. I wouldn't call them grounded necessarily, and there's a hell of a lot of spectacle to them, but they feel real for the film which I think is important.
3) Can't speak for him, but I have no doubt everyone making this film understands that these films are made to be cinematic spectacles. But I also think they'll be going into it wanting to tell the most compelling story they can. That's what writing a script is all about!
Again, I'm not exactly his biggest fan, and I've never even been too keen on Sicario or the Dune films. But I do see a lot of signs that he's very well qualified and capable of directing a Bond film. Honestly, EON gave us stranger choices.
We have no say on what Denis Villeneuve or any other member of the production of Bond 26 does. And rightfully so.
A Bond film should not be made by fans.
Amazon along with David Heyman and Amy Pascal have entrusted Denis Villeneuve too direct and deliver the next Bond film.
Can we not wait to see what he does?
Fair enough, although saying you dislike him on the whole but have no doubts he'll deliver the goods is more confusing than it is illuminating. :-?
I didn't say I disliked him or his films. They're just not all my cup of tea. I actually rate him very highly as a director. Personal preference. I really liked Prisoners and always have done, and Enemy and Blade Runner 2049 are films I've enjoyed a lot on rewatches. I hope to enjoy Bond 26, and there's a good chance it'll be very good. If it's not to my preference then so be it.
Think of it as the flip side of me saying I love Edgar Wright's earlier films, but am mixed on his later ones, and don't see anything about his work in general that would hint to me he'd be a good Bond director ;)
In this case I'm saying I've been mixed on some of Villeneuve's films, but have really enjoyed certain ones, and believe there are aspects within them that imply to me he'd be a capable Bond director!
I agree. There are easy and simple things for them to keep to make the fandom happy. Gun barrel at the start, titles sequence, Bond theme, Bond in a tux etc.. Those kind of things you can keep in the movie and it wouldn't affect the plot at all.
I wouldn't necessarily want them to include those things simply to keep us happy, in fairness. CR shows these things can be rejigged slightly and give us a satisfying Bond movie. But I can't see them completely throwing them out.
I actually think the opposite; maybe because it's going to be different in other ways, they need that to make it seem like Bond.
I don't know one way or the other. We'll see I suppose.