49 replies to this topic

[Sir James Molony]

In the latest Entertainment Weekly (June 9, 2011) cover story on Super 8, Steven Spielberg was asked which franchise he would like to direct. Here's his answer:

Spielberg: When I first started making movies, the only franchise I cared about and wanted to be part of was James Bond. When I started out as a TV director, my pie-in-the-sky dream was to make a little movie that would get some notoriety, and then [the late Bond series producer] Cubby Broccoli would call me and ask me to direct the next James Bond picture. But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

I recall him making similar comments over the years. In case you haven't seen it, Spielberg had some very nice things to say at the AFI tribute to Sean Connery a few years ago:

[marktmurphy]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

I like his honesty!

[The Shark]

Would be a dream come true for me.

[Matt_13]

Indiana Jones is his Bond. I'm thrilled he wasn't picked, because otherwise we wouldn't have gotten Raiders.

[univex]

Indiana Jones is his Bond. I'm thrilled he wasn't picked, because otherwise we wouldn't have gotten Raiders.

I agree, probably the greatest adventure film of all time.
Did you catch that homage in Catch me if you can? Brilliant.

[mccartney007]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

It's interesting that Spielberg wants to direct a Bond film, but wouldn't cut his rate to do something he's dreamt about. I mean, it's not like he needs the money. At any rate, I'm glad he's not going near the Bond franchise. He's such a hit-and-miss director that I wouldn't want to risk having him turn Bond into a caricature.

[univex]

And, lastly, Americans can write the Bond films, they can produce the Bond films, they can finance the Bond films, and they can co-star in the Bond films.......they just can't direct Bond films

I´m going out on a limb here and agree with you Grav, It´s a british icon from the british film industry, keep it as such. And as much as i like steven, his recent efforts have been horse manure, I can´t even buy e.t on dvd cause the guy implanted lame cgi effects on the dvd 20th anniversary release, just lucas-lame

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Mr Spielberg is a gentleman unlike Mr Lucas, who rather than talked about Connery at his tribute, chose to talk about himself instead and plug his latest Indy film. A disgrace.

[Cornbread17]

The 2-disc version also has the theatrical edition on hand so you can buy it.

[Dustin]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

It's interesting that Spielberg wants to direct a Bond film, but wouldn't cut his rate to do something he's dreamt about. I mean, it's not like he needs the money.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that Spielberg meant the comment to be literal. EON *could* afford Spielberg if they wanted to afford him, and I believe Spielberg would cut his rate for a chance to direct his dream job. I have not a single doubt he'd be all over Bond in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

However, by "afford" I think he probably meant creative control. It's unlikely Barbara and Michael would cede that much creative authority over to Spielberg, even though he's earned it. And, lastly, Americans can write the Bond films, they can produce the Bond films, they can finance the Bond films, and they can co-star in the Bond films.......they just can't direct Bond films

This is most likely the reason he's beyond the Bond range now, no single director in the series can have the creative freedom that one would rightfully expect from a Spielberg-Bond. And Spielberg just as director-for-hire is equally unlikely. Frankly, I wouldn't want just an ordinary entry by him.

It's probably for the better. His first two Indiana Jones films are the we'll ever get as far as his Bond vision gets.

[The Shark]

He's such a hit-and-miss director that I wouldn't want to risk having him turn Bond into a caricature.

Hardly. There's not a single unworthy film in Spielberg's cannon. Even more commercial fare like THE LOST WORLD and THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL have their merits.

[elizabeth]

I would love for Spielberg to direct a Bond film. It'd be nice to see how an American directs Bond, plus it's Spielberg, which automatically guarantees a blockbuster film.

[OmarB]

He's such a hit-and-miss director that I wouldn't want to risk having him turn Bond into a caricature.

Hardly. There's not a single unworthy film in Spielberg's cannon. Even more commercial fare like THE LOST WORLD and THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL have their merits.

I'm with you man. Even at his worst he's still pretty good. His worst is in many cases better than most people's best, and usually better than other great directors middling efforts as well. One of the things I love the most about his movies is how pretty they are too. He will always be in my top 5 directors, usually hovering at 1 or 2, and there's is no movie of his that I have not enjoyed.

[univex]

The 2-disc version also has the theatrical edition on hand so you can buy it.

Thanks man

Mr Spielberg is a gentleman unlike Mr Lucas, who rather than talked about Connery at his tribute, chose to talk about himself instead and plug his latest Indy film. A disgrace.

That´s very true.

He's such a hit-and-miss director that I wouldn't want to risk having him turn Bond into a caricature.

Hardly. There's not a single unworthy film in Spielberg's cannon. Even more commercial fare like THE LOST WORLD and THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL have their merits.

I´m a huge Spielberg fan, and I have defended him in many occasions, but I just can´t agree with you. I mean, War of the Worlds, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Amistad,..., all terrible terrible films, with huge mistakes, poor scripts, lousy effects, ... Personaly, I came out from these films feeling sick and sad because I love Spielberg. Hey, it´s because I like him so much as a film maker that I feel free to criticize him. But to each is own I guess

One thing about him, I still think he should be like Kubrick in the sense that he should prepare his films for years and years and then do something absolutely wonderful. I wish he did less films, like K. Close encounters of the third Kind, E.T, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Empire of the Sun, Jurassick Park, A.I, Catch me if you Can, Terminal, Minority Report, all great, fabulous films, and then he gets Portuguese people in a portuguese ship speaking spanish, and indiana jones mixed with intra dimensional beings, and stuff like that...

Hey, the guy is a critic of his own work. In many interviews he is self deprecating and even shows regret on some films he made. I, for one, admire the man, I just think he is far from perfect. Anyway, when he gets it right, he DOES get it right.

Did you guys know that he owns an Aston Martin DB9 just because of his Bond fixation.

Edited by univex, 11 June 2011 - 07:32 PM.

[dinovelvet]

And, lastly, Americans can write the Bond films, they can produce the Bond films, they can finance the Bond films, and they can co-star in the Bond films.......they just can't direct Bond films

I´m going out on a limb here and agree with you Grav, It´s a british icon from the british film industry, keep it as such.

But many of the recent directors have in fact not been British - Marc Forster, Martin Campbell (New Zealand), Lee Tamahori, Roger Spottiswoode, and none of those films feel more or less British than each other. The only through and through Brit to direct a Bond of late was Michael Apted, and I don't have too much to say about the results there.
Let's face it, EON needs to dump their antiquated policy of no American directors. They're denying themselves a massive talent pool to choose from. OK, Sam Mendes is a good choice, but where to go after that? It occurs to me that both Mendes and former 'Bond 22' guy Roger Michell were approached because of their association with Daniel Craig. Well look who he's just been working with - Steven Spielberg and DAVID FINCHER. Can you imagine if he talked Fincher into meeting with EON? But there isn't a chance in hell of that happening right now.

[The Shark]

I´m a huge Spielberg fan, and I have defended him in many occasions, but I just can´t agree with you. I mean, War of the Worlds, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Amistad,...,

With the exception of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - those are terrific films. WAR OF THE WORLDS captured post-9/11 paranoia and existential crisis more effectively than any other film to date (except Spielberg's own MUNICH), AMISTAD (like THE COLOR PURPLE before it) sought spiritual transcendence from pain and suffering. Very well structured through the three court scenes, culminating in that beautiful moment critic Gregory Solomn described as:

In Amistad (1997) imprisoned African slaves movingly interpret the Christian notion of God through Bible illustrations, renewing the essence of the story, almost impossibly; a Catholic judge, chosen to betray his Church for the pragmatic Novus Ordo Seculorum, kneels to say the Confiteor before heading to the bench, then courageously heeds his conscience instead. Inspired by an “example” – a bust – of his own Founding Father, a past President wins the slaves’ freedom and invokes the Africans’ ancestral worship.

It surpasses any PC hand-wringing that it detractors claim, into something far more profound and perennial. I don't see any of the problems with the script you claim, or the performances (Djimon Hounsou owns the show).

[Napoleon Solo]

A myth has developed over the past half-century that Eon only would consider directors born in the British Commonwealth nations to direct Bond movies. It has been reinforced the past 10-12 years with documentaries on the DVDs. For example, in "Inside Dr. No," it's stated that Eon *only* considered British directors including Guy Green and Guy Hamilton before finally picking Terence Young.

U.K. film historian Adran Turner, in his 1998 book about Goldfinger, writes (after sifting through Richard Maibaum's papers at the University of Iowa and other sources) that United Artists (which, afterall, financed Dr. No), preferred American director Phil Karlson. Karlson, though, had an asking price of $75,000 per movie in 1962 while Terence Young's price was $40,000. If UA was really insistent on Karlson, would Broccoli and Saltzman *really* refused? Broccoli and Saltzman weren't going to pay a director out of their own pocket. Broccoli (and Irving Allen) had tried financing The Trials of Oscar Wilde on their own and almost went bankupt. Saltzman's financial situation was unsettled before the Bond series began.

If things had developed differently, Karlson (who ended up directing the first and fourth Matt Helm movies for former Broccoli partner Allen) could have directed Dr. No. But he didn't and the rest is history.

If Broccoli had hired Steven Spielberg to direct Diamonds Are Forever (the same year Diamonds came out, Spielberg was directing one of the first Columbo episodes), things might have turned out different. But they didn't. Spielberg didn't direct a theatrical movie until 1974 and he hit it big with Jaws in 1975. After that, there was no way he'd ever direct a James Bond movie, where (at that time at least) a director's resume wasn't the main consideration whether he'd be hired.

[jaguar007]

I had always felt that McClory and Jack Schwartzman had missed the boat when they did not hire Spielberg to direct NSNA. In that situation, Spielberg could have had total creative control and made an outstanding Bond film as his follow up to ET.

[Pussfeller]

"Get me Steven Spielberg!"
"I'm afraid he's unavailable."
"Then get me his non-union Mexican equivalent!"

Could it be that the average American director tends to be a bit pricier than an equally qualified non-American director?

Might it also have something to do with the insular, self-sufficient nature of the American film industry? Generally speaking, the United States makes its own movies. Of course it imports talent and films, but as a matter of routine there is very little need for international collaboration of the sort that is taken for granted in Europe and most of the rest of the world. As a whole, American directors have no need to look outside their country for work. There is plenty of domestic work to sustain them. It's only for sentimental or artistic reasons that an American director like Spielberg would aspire to direct a non-American production. Up-and-coming American directors who are worth their salt can generally find work on American productions, and any American director who is sufficiently famous to come to the attention of foreign filmmakers will generally be far too expensive for them to afford.

[univex]

It surpasses any PC hand-wringing that it detractors claim, into something far more profound and perennial. I don't see any of the problems with the script you claim, or the performances (Djimon Hounsou owns the show).

Never said there were any problems with the performances. About the script and film errors, the one that shocked me the most was that on the portuguese ship, all crew spoke spanish...with mexican accents. Cmon man, I´m portuguese, that´s more than insulting. For more mistakes: http://www.imdb.com/...tt0118607/goofs
Even though every film has mistakes, and if you search others, lists will follow, THAT one hurt. It´s just viscerally wrong.

...And I loved Munich. And Djimon Hounsou owns every scene in every movie he´s in.

That said, I still love Spielberg. Only not IJ&KOTCS, Amistad and WOTW. But like I said, to each is own I guess.

BTW, as anyone seen Super8 yet?

Edited by univex, 12 June 2011 - 02:26 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

You don't need the money, Steve. Do it for the love of making films. It's true that your last love letter to the industry - KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - was disappointing, but the direction spot on; it was the script and some of the casting choices (*cough*LaBoof!*cough*) that let the film down.

[Harmsway]

There's not a single unworthy film in Spielberg's cannon.

HOOK.

[jaguar007]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

You don't need the money, Steve. Do it for the love of making films. It's true that your last love letter to the industry - KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - was disappointing, but the direction spot on; it was the script and some of the casting choices (*cough*LaBoof!*cough*) that let the film down.

I have to disagree and I am not the hater of KOFCS that many are. Most of the action scenes were lifeless and flat, especially the major scene through the jungle. Poor overuse of green screen and CGI took me right out of the film.

[Captain Tightpants]

Again, it's a failure of the script, which went towards the ridiculous - the blade hitting the truck, LaBoof swinging with monkeys - rather than the actual direction.

[doublenoughtspy]

If Crystal Skull is how he treats a treasured cinematic franchise, heck his own, I shudder to think to what he would do with Bond.

There is a reason that "Nuke the fridge" has become the cinematic catchphrase for screwing the pooch.

He's an incredibly talented film maker, but not every decision he makes is brilliant. Like Lucas, he seems more concerned with his "legacy" now than anything else.

[The Shark]

There's not a single unworthy film in Spielberg's cannon.

HOOK.

You got me. Probably one of the few very times I find Spielberg descends into shmaltz, instead of a real sentiment. I appreciate more what it tries to achieve, than how it's how it all handled.

It surpasses any PC hand-wringing that it detractors claim, into something far more profound and perennial. I don't see any of the problems with the script you claim, or the performances (Djimon Hounsou owns the show).

Never said there were any problems with the performances. About the script and film errors, the one that shocked me the most was that on the portuguese ship, all crew spoke spanish...with mexican accents. Cmon man, I´m portuguese, that´s more than insulting. For more mistakes: http://www.imdb.com/...tt0118607/goofs
Even though every film has mistakes, and if you search others, lists will follow, THAT one hurt. It´s just viscerally wrong.

I guess I don't take goofs into consideration what judging the quality of a film. To be honest, I tend to find that stuff a little geeky and pedantic. Like judging the quality of an essay entirely on its grammar, or whether or not every i is dotted and t's crossed.

That said, I'm always astounded by the the attention to details these goof-hunters have.

[The Shark]

If Crystal Skull is how he treats a treasured cinematic franchise, heck his own, I shudder to think to what he would do with Bond.

There is a reason that "Nuke the fridge" has become the cinematic catchphrase for screwing the pooch.

It's because the film going public has become more literal minded than ever, and can't cope with surreal, unrealistic, highly symbolic setpieces. One of the reasons why Tim Burton has gone out of fashion. For me, that nuclear testing site sequence is one of the highlights of the film. A masterful build up of tension, that's rarely seen in most blockbusters today.

[ACE]

"Get me Steven Spielberg!"
"I'm afraid he's unavailable."
"Then get me his non-union Mexican equivalent!"

LOL

[univex]

I guess I don't take goofs into consideration what judging the quality of a film. To be honest, I tend to find that stuff a little geeky and pedantic. Like judging the quality of an essay entirely on its grammar, or whether or not every i is dotted and t's crossed.

That said, I'm always astounded by the the attention to details these goof-hunters have.

If you find getting an entire cultural identity and language utterly WRONG as a simple goof which need plenty of attention to get notice, then by all means, you Sir ,are right. I find it disturbing. And as you are a Londoner, who are generally very aware of the iberic identity, you shock me Shark. I´m sorry if, being Portuguese, I take it as an insult when a film maker dipict us as being mexican, and I´m sorry if that sound geeky and pedantic. It´s not the same thing as Holmes being played by an american, you see, it´s a bit more serious that that, it´s depreciative and dismissive towards a culture that used to have its impire from where the sun rose to where it set, and I´m not talking about the British.

I´m sorry, but it would be the same thing if Edward Zwick got the samurais to speak mandarin, or if Bertolucci had the lord of ten thousand years speak korean. I guess most of the yanks wouldn´t care for the difference down there in hollywoodville, but please, it´s abismally wrong.

And I know Portugal is nowdays in what economy is concerned, but in what identity is concerned, we still have many chips to put on the table, so yeah, I guess it´s normal if I get upset, even if I´m far from patriotic. Truth is, I could be pro-iberia if the chance surfaced. But really, it´s all about History, and you can´t mess with that. Even with fiction, you can´t have Don Quixote speaking portuguese and you can´t have a biopic of Diego Rivera with him as a frech speaking skinny dude born in the quariter latin. And If you are a world known director, you´ll appreciate the accuracy you get from research.

About symbolism, sure, you can be symbolic all you what, but be respectfull on the way, xenophobia, racism, ..., all can be born out of missinterpretation. So when you get Portuguese people on a portuguese ship, being mexican - people from a country on the other side of the atlantic, with nothing to do with Pessoa or Camões - yeah, it´s abismal.

I recently saw Destino, a piece from Dali and Walt Disney that marries symbolism with a great deal of cultural references, and it´s done wonderfully. Point is, symbolic is wonderfull, I myself happen to study symbolism and projective issues on psychoanalysis, and I find symmbolic set pieces to be entirely more entertaining then documentary styled ones. And I do love Tim Burton, as I love Dali. But Amistad isn´t supposed to struck the same chords as Alice in Wonderland or The Persistence of Memory, it´s supposed to be an History piece with highly emotional value, so I hoped he wouldn´t made such a grave mistake.

KOTCS is supposed to be Kitsh 50s, but having a fridge with a full grown man inside blowned away by a nuke and then have that man walk awat to battle monkeys and intra-dimensional beings is as if Lucas didn´t change his original Indiana Jones ideas...you know...that Indiana Smith guy. And besides, does any of that resumè I just made sound like our beloved Indy? It´s League of Extraordinary Excrements kind of suff if you ask me. But hey, like I said too many times allready, to each is own.

There, I think I made my final point, and I see no need to take it further. Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time and probably will become, if he isn´t allready, the most iconic image of a director in film history. He has flops, everyone has. What I find geeky and pedantic is fans defending the guy to exaustion without criticizing blantant mistakes.

PS: And I even forgot Hook. Thanks for that one Harms.

And Shark, no offense and all that All solid forum discussion

Edited by univex, 12 June 2011 - 04:03 PM.

[The Shark]

I guess I don't take goofs into consideration what judging the quality of a film. To be honest, I tend to find that stuff a little geeky and pedantic. Like judging the quality of an essay entirely on its grammar, or whether or not every i is dotted and t's crossed.

That said, I'm always astounded by the the attention to details these goof-hunters have.

If you find getting an entire cultural identity and language utterly WRONG as a simple goof which need plenty of attention to get notice, then by all means, you Sir ,are right. I find it disturbing. And as you are a Londoner, who are generally very aware of the iberic identity, you shock me Shark.

It was a silly mistake, you're right - and I'm sure Spielberg regrets it. But I don't think it's enough to dismiss an entire film, that's not constructed around the Iberic identity - rather that of the African slave, and civil war-era American politician. While the film gets the nationality and cultural identity of the Tecora wrong, it does not slander, or attack the Portuguese (unlike say - James Cameron's treatment of Edward Smith, captain of the RMS Titanic as a stubborn coward - later the same year). It's a simple, non-malicious, though regrettable error.

There's also British actors Nigel Hawthorne and Anthony Hopkins playing American presidents, and several other historical innateness. But none of it is done to distort history, or truth.

I´m sorry if, being Portuguese, I take it as an insult when a film maker dipict us as being mexican, and I´m sorry if that sound geeky and pedantic. It´s not the same thing as Holmes being played by an american, you see, it´s a bit more serious that that, it´s depreciative and dismissive towards a culture that used to have its impire from where the sun rose to where it set, and I´m not talking about the British.

I understand. In all reality, it was likely a pragmatic choice. Mexican and Puerto Rican actors and extras are a lot easier to come by in Hollywood.

There, made my final point, and I see no need to take it further. Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time and probably will become, if he isn´t allready, the most iconic image of a director in film history. He has flops, everyone has. What I find geeky and pedantic is fans defending the guy to exaustion without criticizing blantant mistakes.

I don't have a problem with fans finding mistakes. I just don't think it's solid grounds to criticise an entire film. More valid points would be - bad performances, shoddy pacing, poorly explored ides, schmaltz, sensationalism, lack of heart, pretentiousness, racist portrayal of Africans etc... The bigger picture, in other words. That's what counts.

And Shark, no offense and all that All solid forum discussion

Cheers.