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
My hope is that Knight was hired to handcuff Villeneuve and make it so his creative powers are channelled in a way that is correct for Bond. A bit like the serious director being handed the "fun" script that you often talk about happened with the likes of Lewis Gilbert and Terrence Young of the old days. I've said it before but if you take a look at the classic Bond films although they are humourous in their tone, they are directed very dry and stoic. I think Villeneuve would be great at bringing that on the screen, but only if he has the script to counterbalance his stoic direction. That's what I hope Knight is there to do.
To be fair to The Force Awakens, JJ's direction wasn't the problem with that movie, I think he did an really great job with it, just the story was far too derivative overall. In many ways I think JJ was the perfect modern director for Star Wars in a same way could be said for Villeneuve and Bond.
I wouldn't say he's there to handcuff Villeneuve. I have no doubt Knight was hired in large part because of his ability to craft action, create lively pacing, and form punchy dialogue. The other part is very likely because he saw eye to eye with what the producers and Villeneuve wanted to do with the story and was deemed the best writer to make their vision come to life in script form.
At any rate, a director is hired because of what they'll bring to the film, not to be shackled by a script. They have to understand how to tell the story, and as a producer you're going to want the director to bring their strengths to the project. It's the same with any other Bond director over the past few films - Campbell, Forster, Mendes, Fukunaga etc.
It's been a long time since I saw the film, but from what I remember I found it underwhelming. Anyway, that's kind of Abrams's thing - he'd made Super 8 which was an homage to 80s Spielberg fare (it was fine. Same issues with Force Awakens perhaps). And he'd rebooted Star Trek (films which kind of did what they said on the tin - again, fine. I liked them). They got the director to make the film they wanted - one used to working for big franchises/replicating all the stuff we've come to expect from them.
With Villeneuve it seems to me we've gotten a different kind of director. We'll see what he brings.
Even generic movie communities talk about it.
When? I don't see the discussion.
Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Reddit, for instance.
...Screenrant... Collider ...CineD...indiewire...MovieWeb...
Jesus @Mendes4Lyfe , why'd you do this?
And, lemme get this straight: you hope Knight was hired to "shackle" the director?!!
That's not how this works.
For God's sake Mendes, for someone so frantic about news on B26, READ THE NEWS WE HAVE: DV was hired because a pitch he gave the producers. The writer was hired to flesh out this story-idea that the director pitched-- not to shackle him. Are you nuts?!! Or just bored?
Take a chill pill.
Try and enjoy the ride.
You're making up things that won't happen.
Try and read a book. Do some breath work. Yoga.
But please, do us a favour and just calm down. Most of the things you've ever said about films and filmmaking is 99.9% inaccurate. That's not hyperbole. And this latest about shackling the director via script?!! I have no words...
JAMES BOND RETURNS IN
[BOND 26}
This reminds me of my suggestion that, for a while, Bond should die in EVERY film. A mature Bond, a new young one, a kid, a serious one, a fun-loving one, etc. -- it would bring in many different actors, and just when people get used to it and expect him to die EVERY bleepin' time - he lives ! But not too soon. THAT will get them away from annoying anyone with the same style film too many times. Tag line for one of them ? "Yup ! Dyin' again !"
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0F79K57Y5?storeType=ebooks#detailBullets_feature_div
https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Deferred-Time-Die-Sequel/dp/B0F43FFZJW/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3LU9FGH53B991&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sRF36Aits14gOIqinPGGf3XctOjCC3pDso4DnCRPxHk.EAXdtnUMAptdZOuUVJ1KYFzjE35MvwigmtGDwk7GGbQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=james+bond+jim+conway&qid=1760813747&sprefix=james+bond+jim+conway,aps,70&sr=8-1#detailBullets_feature_div
It was a very powerful explosive, but was it nuclear ? He pretty was vaporized, though
I agree with Campbell: James Bond should be the star. I’d rather see a relatively unknown actor grow into the role than watch a major celebrity compete with Bond for the spotlight.
I would agree.
I like Campbell, but many others helped make CR and GE, including those who’d been working on Bond longer than he ever has. Making a ‘bloody good Bond film’ and not completely changing it to the point it’s unrecognisable is fine advice and worth listening to, but not always incredibly useful in the context of making a movie.
Again, it’s not incredibly useful in itself. For what it’s worth Campbell’s much more interesting when talking specifically about his approach to GE and CR. But I’m going to guess none of that was some truth bomb Villeneuve and the new producers were completely unaware of.
Well, it’s not a dial they can flick up and down when writing the script. All they can do is create their own Bond film organically and figure out what they think works. They just need to go through the process.
Anyway, after a point I think all this advice from previous Bond filmmakers has to be tuned out. EON say it has to be a reinvention and Bond should be a certain age, Campbell says it doesn’t need to be a reboot (like one of his films was) and don’t fix what isn’t broken etc. The new team just has to get on with making the best Bond film they can.
Yeah. Let's even look at the First Light game. That trailer felt so fresh, yet it was still James Bond. So I think Amazon would do such with the film...not necessarily First Light style...but just making Bond 26 fresh, but still James Bond.
Worth saying First Light seems to be very much a reboot of Bond and completely goes against this idea he has to be in his later 30s/40s. So it goes against the advice of the Bond elders as it were! Hell, we know it goes against what a chunk of fans seem to want on these forums, and at one point could have been seen as ‘conventional wisdom’ for a new Bond adventure (ie. Not wanting Bond to have any tragedy or references to his past, which we know this game includes!)
But yeah, that’s all they can do - make the best Bond film possible. Simple task, I know!
Yeah. That's exactly what they have to do.
I would say Moore was established standout with Pierce. There is not so easy pick next time around as those two were. Not even very close.
There's obviously more to it than "as long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film."
Edit: Sorry, that sounds more snarky than intended. I'm not putting down your opinion or trying to start a fight.
I love how much this man understands what Bond is. I'd love him to be working on the films behind the scenes
If Villeneuve is not available, they should get Campbell to direct the screentests.