74 replies to this topic

[Mr_Wint]

Maybe Stuart Baird. "Executive Decision" and "U.S. Marshals" are both decent actionthrillers. And he has a lot of experience from editing (like Hunt and Glen).

That would being go straight back to the generic action directors of the Brosnan era, no thanks.

They used upcoming praised "drama"-directors in the Brosnan era too. Both Apted and Tamahori fall into this category. At that time, they were considered to be a gritty, "interesting", choices. I like to think that it is better to produce a solid script (spend the money on the writers) and then bring in an experienced actiondirector to execute it with some old-fashioned filmmaking. Stuart Baird could be the right man for this.

[dee-bee-five]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

[Mister E]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

[MI6 Lisbon Branch]

It will be very difficult to top this movie!
But Marc Foster has proven that he is a true artist, a director far above average and that brought brilliancy to the series.
I would definitely say .. bring him back, but we have to think of all of those who didnt like the movie (unfortunately many!) and that the franchise needs for future sucess.
So probably they will move to a less "art house" movie director.
Maybe they get someone for all tastes .. maybe Christopher Nolan?

[Mister Asterix]

Well, I think he's now officially the Paul Greengrass of the Bond series; why is it that action directors are making all the crappy action films these days and independent types like Greengrass,Chris Nolan and now Marc Forster are ruling the action world?. I want him back. Pronto.Pay the man.$70M opening weekend is a good start.The man just gets Bond.

thoughts?

I completely disagree with you about bringing Forster back. I agree that he’s probably the best director Bond ever had, but if Quantum of Solace made me want something different for every Bond film.

If I had Babs and Mickey G’s ears I’d tell them to take the risk again on another director. Mix things up again. One Forster Bond film is fresh and wonderful, and while another could be great I’m really psyched to take this thing in another direction again. It worked so well for Quantum of Solace.

[dee-bee-five]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

[Mister E]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film. It almost feels claustrophobic. Like I have said before, QOS is a movie that grabs you but in it's haste, it often lets you go.

[dee-bee-five]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Mister E]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That is sloppiness because the presentation is horrble, a key to all art.

Maybe Stuart Baird. "Executive Decision" and "U.S. Marshals" are both decent actionthrillers. And he has a lot of experience from editing (like Hunt and Glen).

That would being go straight back to the generic action directors of the Brosnan era, no thanks.

They used upcoming praised "drama"-directors in the Brosnan era too. Both Apted and Tamahori fall into this category. At that time, they were considered to be a gritty, "interesting", choices. I like to think that it is better to produce a solid script (spend the money on the writers) and then bring in an experienced actiondirector to execute it with some old-fashioned filmmaking. Stuart Baird could be the right man for this.

Just because they made dramas doesn't mean they weren't generic. Again Baird would be going back to the workman like and boring direction of the past. We need someone with actual vision and flair.

[dee-bee-five]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That is sloppiness because the presentation is horrble, a key to all art.

I found the presentation stylish, full of visual flair and inventive storytelling. But we're going round in circles.

[Mister E]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That is sloppiness because the presentation is horrble, a key to all art.

I found the presentation stylish, full of visual flair and inventive storytelling. But we're going round in circles.

You are talking about the content, not the presentation. Also what is inventive about the storytelling ?

[dee-bee-five]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That is sloppiness because the presentation is horrble, a key to all art.

I found the presentation stylish, full of visual flair and inventive storytelling. But we're going round in circles.

You are talking about the content, not the presentation. Also what is inventive about the storytelling ?

For starters, the fact that I was expected to do some work through the subtext. I found it both inventive and refreshing that the director of the 22nd entry in an action-adventure franchise assumed I had a brain.

Oh, and I was talking about presentation of the content.

[Mister E]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That is sloppiness because the presentation is horrble, a key to all art.

I found the presentation stylish, full of visual flair and inventive storytelling. But we're going round in circles.

You are talking about the content, not the presentation. Also what is inventive about the storytelling ?

For starters, the fact that I was expected to do some work through the subtext. I found it both inventive and refreshing that the director of the 22nd entry in an action-adventure franchise assumed I had a brain.

That isn't "inventive story telling" though. That is just good writing.

Oh, and I was talking about presentation of the content.

Well I don't agree there. The content was great but the presentation as all wrong.

[dee-bee-five]

He delivered in spades for me. It's the best-directed Bond film bar none for me. Another Forster Bond is fine by me.

Best directed ?

Yes, in my opinion. By a long way.

I am sorry but there is alot of sloppiness to ignore in order to say Forster is number 1.

I discerned no sloppiness whatsoever. He makes every moment count and work.

All the action is shot far too closely and the same goes for alot of the film.

Not for me, it doesn't. But even if you find it to be so, it's obviously meant to be like that, so it's hardly evidence of sloppiness, is it? But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That is sloppiness because the presentation is horrble, a key to all art.

I found the presentation stylish, full of visual flair and inventive storytelling. But we're going round in circles.

You are talking about the content, not the presentation. Also what is inventive about the storytelling ?

For starters, the fact that I was expected to do some work through the subtext. I found it both inventive and refreshing that the director of the 22nd entry in an action-adventure franchise assumed I had a brain.

That isn't "inventive story telling" though. That is just good writing.

In a collaborative production like Bond, the two cannot be divorced. Though I agree with you that the writing is excellent.

[Mister E]

In a collaborative production like Bond, the two cannot be divorced. Though I agree with you that the writing is excellent.

I still understand what was so inventive about it. The story was good and executed well but it wasn't inventive.