SKYFALL (BOND 23) November 9, 2012 in Coming Soon Forum

Forum Jump

SKYFALL (BOND 23) November 9, 2012

Author	Comment
Richard		#21	[-]
Jan 11 10 12:36 PM More My Recent Posts	delgadosaur wrote: You may not like Greengrass' visualstyle, to which I must differ, but he tells solid stories, which the Bond franchise sadly, for the large part does not. His Bournes kick the crap out of Bond. Anyone that feels different is simply being territorial and nostalgic. As Robert Vaughn said to Steve McQueen in Bullitt, "I can't find a flaw in that statement." Director Sam Mendes is a perfect match for playwright / script writer editor Peter Morgan (reconstituting Purvis / Wade), which can only be disasterous for Bond 23. Richard "There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." Will Rogers
	Remove this ad
Richard		#22	[-]
Jan 11 10 12:59 PM More My Recent Posts	Paul Scrabo wrote: The director is not as important as the SCRIPT. It's ALWAYS the script. Barbara & Michael's method of late is to check the rolodex to see who's hot or somewhat important at the moment and beg them to direct the next Bond (They asked Paul Haggis. he turned it down.) I like Mendes (who has directed Broadway shows as well) and like Amercian Beauty, though that film was re-shuffled from what is was started out to be, and it's all emotion (which worked for me) and short on logic. It's Purvis & Wade that's the problem, who apparently must have a photo of Michael Wilson in a dress to insure their constant re-hiring. Paul Join us here for BOND MEMORIES jjonathanbarnett wrote: Oh no. That is gonna suck. You guys will no doubt find much to agree with in this report: James Bond is director-proof Sam Mendes's Bond 23 will probably not depict the superspy having a mid-life crisis in suburbia. Instead, expect the usual formula. If you've ever wondered what Moonraker might have looked like had it been directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky, or what Robert Bresson would have made of Diamonds Are Forever, then a roundabout answer may just be in the offing. Sam Mendes, the classy, respectable Oscar-winner behind the likes of American Beauty and Revolutionary Road, is reportedly "in negotiations" to direct Bond 23, the latest instalment in the 007 franchise. A swift review of the Mendes back catalogue raises some tantalising prospects. Will Bond suffer a tragicomic mid-life crisis in suburbia, or perhaps steer his Aston Martin off on a harum-scarum road trip in search of the perfect place to raise a family? Or will he simply throw punches, defuse nuclear devices and run amok in a tuxedo, the same as it ever was? No prizes for guessing the answer to that one (not even two tickets to the inevitable Leicester Square premiere). No doubt the news that Mendes is in pole position to direct a Bond film spells good news for Mendes and Mendes's accountant. But it is unlikely to even ruffle the hair of the man himself. James Bond, it transpires, is not just bullet-proof and critic-proof. The evidence suggests he's director-proof as well. In recent decades both Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino have lobbied to direct a Bond picture, only to find their overtures graciously ignored. Both, I'm guessing, felt that they could bring something new and fresh and personal to the series. Both (again, I'm guessing) were turned down precisely because of this. Bond's producers (formerly Cubby Broccoli; latterly Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson) have no need of something new and fresh and personal because they figure that their property is good enough as it is, thank you very much. Certainly they have no desire to deliver it into the care of some rogue agent who might, I dunno, make Bond homosexual or cast Agnès Varda as his love interest. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Mendes, a smart man and a shrewd operator, is doubtless aware of this already. In signing on to direct Bond 23, he temporarily relinquishes any claims to be an auteur to become the equivalent of a shop-floor manager - on set to ensure that the actors hit their marks and the producers' brief is fulfilled to the letter. That's how it has been with every Bond director, from Terence Young through to Marc Forster, because on Bond movies it is the producer who calls the shots. What would Moonraker have looked like had it been directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky? Or David Lynch? Or your aunt with the gimpy leg? My suspicion is that it would have wound up looking exactly the same as the Lewis Gilbert version. http://commanderbond.net/quicknews/56980 Richard "There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." Will Rogers
jjonathanbarnett		#23	[-]
Jan 12 10 3:32 AM More My Recent Posts	I can't speak or write for Paul (and his wonderful website) but Richard reads me like a cheap comic book. Regarding Mendes, he is a good director of performances. I grow irritated at how his movies underscore a subtext that would be better left alone. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is like a horror movie masquerading as a drama. ROAD TO PERDITION seemed to be embarrassed to be a gangster movie. He doesn't seem all that suspenseful as a filmmaker. I did like AMERICAN BEAUTY. He does like his actors.
jjonathanbarnett		#24	[-]
Jan 12 10 3:53 AM More My Recent Posts	"You may not like Greengrass' visualstyle, to which I must differ,....." No. I get motion sickness. "but he tells solid stories, which the Bond franchise sadly, for the large part does not. His Bournes kick the crap out of Bond. Anyone that feels different is simply being territorial and nostalgic." Well I don't think much of either. The 90s and 00s Bond films are all over the place but rarely amounting to anything. Someone will have my head for this but I rather liked DIE ANOTHER DAY. It was an unpretentious romp. Yes, it was sometimes too silly but that's what movies do. CASINO ROYALE is the best made of the bunch so far. As for Bourne, I missed the second one altogether. The first film, I was unexcited about it. The face off at the end seemed tacked on and hurried. It played too much like a X-MEN movie. He was a Mutant Secret Agent that discovers that he can fight really well. As for the third, I can't recall the action sequences because I had to leave the room. As for the story, I couldn't tell what was going on. Shadow Governments have been known to do that. I take motion sickness personally. I did like UNITED 93.
Dennman		#25	[-]
Jan 12 10 7:18 PM More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: Omega Man wrote: I happen to love the opening car chase in QOS. (And no, it's not difficult to follow what's happening in it.) I beg to differ. I didn't like the opening car chase in QOS. (And for me, yes - it is difficult to follow what's happening in it.) I would like the car chase sooooooooo much better if the pre credit sequence had.....dare I say, followed the much appreciated, expected, traditional GUNBARREL SEQUENCE!!!!!! That's MY only real problem with QoS. Until Quantum, Licence To Kill was generally regarded as the least Bondian Bond film. But, it still featured traditional elements: gunbarrel, "Bond, James Bond" line, 007 gets his leading lady at the end, and so forth. Quantum rids us of those elements. Other than that, I actually quite like QoS. Still, I expect the Bond team to get it right next time with B23.
Richard		#26	[-]
Jan 15 10 3:47 PM More My Recent Posts	One may hope, but don't count on their getting it right in the next one. I think it will be more of the same: no gun-barrel opener, no 007 theme, no familiar lines, the leading lady won't want Bond and probably won't even like him, M will follow him around everywhere to remind him of what a guilty, stupid schmuck he is, the writing will be sour and dour and politically corrected ad infinitum, and the action will be over-cut shaky-cam. Look at Peter Morgan's other films and at Sam Mendez's other films. Look at Barbara Broccoli's previous Bond productions. That's what you can expect from Bond 23. Richard "There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." Will Rogers
Chesterbelloc		#27	[-]
Jan 24 10 11:04 AM More My Recent Posts	I don't think QUANTUM OF SOLACE was as well received as CASINO ROYALE, so I'm hoping we get action scenes with better editing as well as a camera that lingers on things a bit more so we can see what is being photographed(what is the purpose of beautiful locations and characters wearing stylish clothing if we can't see them for more than a split second at a time?). Also hoping for the gun barrel opening and a score that sounds like Bond and not DESPERADO. Besides that, I can't say that I'm too optimistic. CR was a return to form for Bond IMHO, but the producers have already squandered their opportunity and made a sequel that makes even DIE ANOTHER DAY look good in comparision. Check out my movie collection at: http://www.dvdaf.com/search.html?where=larryw7&init_form=where_0_larryw7*mode_more Last Edited By: Chesterbelloc Jan 24 10 11:12 AM. Edited 1 times.
delgadosaur		#28	[-]
Jan 27 10 5:32 PM More My Recent Posts	Jonathan, with all respect, you should watch the second Bourne film. It's very good. The car chase in that film is nothing short of gripping, but is framed around a well-crafted story. I don't know Richard, but I share his opinions regarding the Bonds. The Director of American Beauty has no business directing a Bond film. Frankly, Die another Day is a pretentious film, and compared to Casino Royale and the Bournes, frankly embarrasses itself. If you have to complain about shaky cam, that's fine, but story and tone is where CR and BOURNE is at where the other Bonds are not. Didn't Michael Apted direct the world is not enough, and isn't that a pretty lousy excuse for a spy film? And during that filming, everyone on set raved about a literate, mature filmmaker taking the helm of a Bond film, and we got an invisible car skating around on an ice field, and a Honey Rider ripoff. I'm tired of Pierce Brosnan tightening his tie after his sub car emerges from underwater, and prefer a villain of menace like the guy in Casino Royale. I love it when his girl is going to get her hand hacked off, and he says nothing!!! That's a total bad guy, but in QOS, the guy wants....water. There's so much back story to Bond in CR, and in the others films he just becomes this hollow character that leads us through a hollow story. He seduces married women, which makes sense for his character. He's a complete thug in CR, and in my opinion what happens is that Campbell reboots the franchise with his two films, but then the producers, who prefer the gravy train that is the franchise rather than actually realize that they lack in imagination and creativity, revert back to what makes them feel comfortable: a hollow spectacle which makes a hundred million, keeps them in place and thrills those with low expectations.
delgadosaur		#29	[-]
Jan 27 10 5:43 PM More My Recent Posts	Here's a few directors that would make a great Bond film, but the bloated Broccoli regime would never hire them because they can't control them: - Paul Greengrass - Quentin Tarantino - James Cameron - Ridley Scott - David Fincher - Guy Ritchie - Ron Howard (just kidding) - Wachowski Brothers Tarantino has actually campaigned to do it, and as far as I know, been rebuffed.
delgadosaur		#30	[-]
Jan 27 10 6:26 PM More My Recent Posts	Regarding an earlier post, Tomorrow never Dies may have not been written by Purvis and Wade, but it feels like it was written by twenty brightly colored clowns that just piled out of a tiny car with crayons and foil paper, all WGA. Or a drunken Roger Spottiswoode and Pierce Brosnan in a Hong Kong lobby the night before the shoot. If Greengrass hates the character of Bond so much, he should stop talking about him in his Bourne commentaries.
	Remove this ad
jjonathanbarnett		#31	[-]
Feb 1 10 1:10 AM More My Recent Posts	"Tarantino has actually campaigned to do it, and as far as I know, been rebuffed." He wanted to adapt the novel and set it in the 1950s. I'm sure he had read stories about Howard Hawks trying to make the movie with Cary Grant as James Bond. I always suspected he wanted to make not just a Bond movie but also a Howard Hawks homage. I wonder if JACKIE BROWN filled that void?
BijouBob8mm	007 in 3-D?	#32	[-]
Feb 2 10 9:53 AM More My Recent Posts	With talk of the next Harry Potters possibly being given the 3-D treatment, there is speculation Bond might also be a candidate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35103411/ns/entertainment-movies/ns/entertainment-movies/
cabmangray		#33	[-]
Feb 2 10 12:56 PM More My Recent Posts	Delgado, as per directors, I think it's a case of "we call you, you don't call us." Spielberg has said several times he would love to direct one, but it will never happen. How about the Hughes brothers? My own feeling about CR is I ruined it for myself. I read the script several months before it opened so I knew what to expect going in. That was'nt the problem so much as the casting was to me; I hated the choice of Craig and was ready to tear him up. He still isn't my idea of Bond, but he isn't going anywhere soon so we are stuck with him. I was surprised at how much I hated Eva Green. This is the love of Bond's life, and she can't stand the sight of him through 3/4 of the movie, then she can't keep her hands off him? Come on! She gives him several looks that would be right at home in a Hammer Dracula movie! Stick fangs in her mouth and she's right at home. Bah!
BijouBob8mm		#34	[-]
Feb 2 10 1:07 PM More My Recent Posts	I hated the choice of Craig and was ready to tear him up. He still isn't my idea of Bond, but he isn't going anywhere soon so we are stuck with him. Maybe, maybe not. Craig made the comment some time back that he wasn't sure about doing more than three.
delgadosaur		#35	[-]
Feb 2 10 5:22 PM More My Recent Posts	I can list a few more directors, Hughes brothers included, but it's still gonna be a Neon/Broccoli/Wison production, so I don't have high hopes for it, yet wish it well. Spielberg directing a bond, at least young Spielberg, would be amazing. I too disliked the idea of a reboot and did not like Craig at all coming into the film, but Casino in my opinion is a very strong story with an interesting four-act structure that turned my opinion around by watching the story unfold. The girl's turn was interesting to me, not because of the actress' capabilities, but I bought that their journey together would lead her to turn to him, since essencially she is doing all of this for another (and presumably weaker in character) man, but runs into this brick wall of a man who refuses to compromise. And the idea that Bond's heart gets broken by the girl was interesting to me. And I got the sense from Craig that he really loved her. But what people did not talk about a lot was the villain, who I thought was just slimy and fantastic. The story always tried to veer in a different way than one would expect, and I respected that., And that staircase fight was just ferocious.
Mark Redfield		#36	[-]
Feb 6 10 8:45 AM More My Recent Posts	I think judging a film (as yet un-made and sight unseen) based on any given filmmaker's previous film or films, is a load of crap. If one could truly predict how a film will work based on that, all films would work and be creatively successful. Making some sort of mathematical formula out of it (this writer plus that director, divided by those producers and these actors) is inane, and betrays little understanding of the creative process. Tout all you want. I'll wait until it's released. But while we're speculating, wouldn't it be just wonderful, just peachy, just all happy-happy-joy-joy, if Tarantino could do to Bond what he did to WW2? (I don't think there's another movie in the history of cinema where I've rooted and cheered more for the Nazis...) Mark Redfield Visit www.redfieldarts.com <
Mark Redfield		#37	[-]
Feb 6 10 8:51 AM More My Recent Posts	BijouBob8mm wrote: With talk of the next Harry Potters possibly being given the 3-D treatment, there is speculation Bond might also be a candidate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35103411/ns/entertainment-movies/ns/entertainment-movies/ Potter IS being released in 2 and 3-D. There's a strange, quite desperation, to all the 3-D plans... And it's not new. This 3-D stuff has been in the works by the majors for years now. Eisner was going on about this many years ago, when he was running Disney, for instance. Mark Redfield Visit www.redfieldarts.com <
Wich2		#38	[-]
Feb 6 10 10:19 AM More My Recent Posts	But right now, Mark, it seems to be working b.o. - so it'll continue... (It'll be interesting to see how ALICE does.)
Mark Redfield		#39	[-]
Feb 6 10 10:30 AM More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: But right now, Mark, it seems to be working b.o. - so it'll continue... (It'll be interesting to see how ALICE does.) I agree. It can only improve crap like PIRANHA and help its b.o. It can enhance something like AVATAR or ALICE. Add nothing but novelty to Bond 23. Mark Redfield Visit www.redfieldarts.com <
BijouBob8mm		#40	[-]
Feb 10 10 9:40 AM More My Recent Posts	But while we're speculating, wouldn't it be just wonderful, just peachy, just all happy-happy-joy-joy, if Tarantino could do to Bond what he did to WW2? (I don't think there's another movie in the history of cinema where I've rooted and cheered more for the Nazis...) I would love to see Tarantino do a Bond film, even if it were one that had to fit into the franchise and not be the period piece he had wanted to do with CASINO ROYALE. I loved the "film bits" he worked into INGLORIOUS BASTERDS that were probably not known to most mainstream audiences. (Silver nitrate and flame do not mix, the references to the "mountain films" of German cinema, etc.) And that shot of Melanie Laurent's face projected onto the smoke and flames of the burning nitrate looked like something Fritz Lang would have dreamed up. It can only improve crap like PIRANHA and help its b.o. I'd sooner see Joe Dante's film get a theatrical reissue.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

SKYFALL (BOND 23) November 9, 2012