538 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

Don´t know if stretched out tension is out these days. In fact, CR had very long and tense scenes. QOS was just a different take.

I still hope that Alfonso Cuaron would take on Bond. His extremely long takes in CHILDREN OF MEN were fantastic.

[Odd Jobbies]

Don´t know if stretched out tension is out these days. In fact, CR had very long and tense scenes.

I believe that's exactly what i just said - that CR did indeed hark back to old fashioned storytelling in it's gambling scenes.

IMO it didn't quite come up to the exemplary standard of FRWL. A long scene isn't necessarily a tense one; tension is often derived from the audience knowing something the protagonist doesn't - the tension being, will they gain this piece of knowledge in time. By it's nature the scenes in FRWL do this because we know Red Grant is not who he claims to be - will Bond learn this in time? We squirm as we watch Connery become suspicious (red wine & fish), yet welcome Grant back to his compartment.

Whereas Le Chiffre and Bond both know who they are dealing with and put on a charade in which bullets are replaced by playing-cards; a decent source of tension, but not as fruitful as a protagonist unaware of the risk. So CR can never be as tense as FRWL, and thus in the odd moment here and there it's duration shouldn't be mistaken for tension.

However, as i said, CR should be applauded for reintroducing theidea of tension (without bullets) back into Bond, indeed back into thrillers, even if it doesn't quite reach the gold standard of FRWL, which anyhow it never really can because of it's structure.

[Zorin Industries]

To be honest, the longer scenes are only longer when you look at what is around at the moment. What jars a little for me with ROYALE now is that the longer moments are counterbalanced by really clumsy action scenes (that are good in their own right granted - eg. the stairwell and poisoning scenes) but are only included to appease the attention spans of the audience - but do so quite gracelessly.

[Odd Jobbies]

To be honest, the longer scenes are only longer when you look at what is around at the moment. What jars a little for me with ROYALE now is that the longer moments are counterbalanced by really clumsy action scenes (that are good in their own right granted - eg. the stairwell and poisoning scenes) but are only included to appease the attention spans of the audience - but do so quite gracelessly.

I think that's a fair way of looking at it. I was tempted myself to suggest that the gambling is so fragmented because of the fear that the young audience don't have the attention span for the entire gambling scene. But without going back to the novel i can't recall if it wasn't originally broken, at least in two.

Cinematically i can live with it because each scene is so well done, but perhaps there's some credence in suggesting it all might have played better if the stairwell fight had come first and the gambling had only been divided once by the poisoning - which i think works very well in context for Le Chiffre's reaction when Bond returns from the grave (though i'd have lost the awful line, "that last hand almost killed me". it got laughs from the kids, but boy i really cringed).

[Loomis]

To be honest, the longer scenes are only longer when you look at what is around at the moment. What jars a little for me with ROYALE now is that the longer moments are counterbalanced by really clumsy action scenes (that are good in their own right granted - eg. the stairwell and poisoning scenes) but are only included to appease the attention spans of the audience - but do so quite gracelessly.

Audience-appeasing action for people with short attention spans. There's none of that in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, is there?

[Zorin Industries]

To be honest, the longer scenes are only longer when you look at what is around at the moment. What jars a little for me with ROYALE now is that the longer moments are counterbalanced by really clumsy action scenes (that are good in their own right granted - eg. the stairwell and poisoning scenes) but are only included to appease the attention spans of the audience - but do so quite gracelessly.

Audience-appeasing action for people with short attention spans. There's none of that in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, is there?

But the story and tone of the piece requires that from the start. And as the scenes are allegedly too quick for some to even comprehend then those with short attention spans are lost at the wayside all over again....allegedly.

[SecretAgentFan]

To be honest, the longer scenes are only longer when you look at what is around at the moment. What jars a little for me with ROYALE now is that the longer moments are counterbalanced by really clumsy action scenes (that are good in their own right granted - eg. the stairwell and poisoning scenes) but are only included to appease the attention spans of the audience - but do so quite gracelessly.

I think that's a fair way of looking at it. I was tempted myself to suggest that the gambling is so fragmented because of the fear that the young audience don't have the attention span for the entire gambling scene. But without going back to the novel i can't recall if it wasn't originally broken, at least in two.

Cinematically i can live with it because each scene is so well done, but perhaps there's some credence in suggesting it all might have played better if the stairwell fight had come first and the gambling had only been divided once by the poisoning - which i think works very well in context for Le Chiffre's reaction when Bond returns from the grave (though i'd have lost the awful line, "that last hand almost killed me". it got laughs from the kids, but boy i really cringed).

Hmm, first of all: a book can get away with long scenes while a film has got to move. That was always the case - not just for today´s ADD-challenged audiences. To each his own, of course, but CR IMO pretty well balanced action with longer dialogue scenes.

[double o ego]

Bah, I don't understand why EON are afraid to reintroduce tension that dont include explosions, guns and action. I wont outright fully defend the audience's capacity to sit through a film like Bond and embrace lengthy, thought-provoking scenes but I think for the sake of credibility to EON and the film, especially in this climate where Bond, now more than ever needs to distinguish himself from the competition, is the best and most effective way possible, underestimating the audience doesn't fully pay off.

The fact is, Bond will always make money and instead of turning these films into tired uber action-fests, injecting some intelligence into these films so that they actually revert back to what they one where, thrillers, can pretty much benefit everyone.

I'm sorry but people can say what they want about Tarantino but the guy is a master when it comes to entertainment, particularly when it comes to shooting lengthy scenes that involve dialogie/discussions between 2 people or more. I've seen all his films apart from that 2 picture movie he did with Rodriguez and all I can say is, those talking scenes are more gripping than many action scenes in general. As a point of reference, inglorious bastards had a few of these. The opening scenes where col. landa visits that guy's house and gets him to reveal that he has jews hidden in his floor boards is a classic example of a build up of gripping tension. Better yet, and this is my favourite scene in the movie, the basement scene where you have the bastards, Lt.Hicox (Hicox who incidentally reminded me of classic Bond, the whole scene could have easily fit into an early connery Bond movie) meeting up with Briget Hammersmark amongst a group of German soldiers. Easily one of the best tense scenes in cinema which culmiantes in classic tarantino style, an all too brief yet ridiculously satisfying shootout.

These sort of scenes people love to see. It moves the story foward and can carry more impact than actual action scenes. The Bond movies had these and they need it back. I don't think people want to see M harping on about trust and bastards for 5 minutes. The movies need to reflect the circumstances in which these movies are based in. Just because the cold war is over, it doesn't mean we can throw out tension and suspense. If anything, we need these sort of scenes just as much as the movies needed them back then.

That being said, Tarantino isn't the only writer/director that can deliver this sort of stuff and make it gripping enough for audiences to enjoy. I think he's more than proven that scenes like that aren't a problem, it all comes down to content and execution and any writer/director worth his salt can pull it off.
That being said, the hiring of Peter Morgan to work on the script gives me hope. Of his work, I've only seen LKOS and Frost/Nixon and I honestly believe he can pull it off.
QoS was a perfect template to bring such scenes but it failed to do so. If any scenes in QoS could have done with such a scene, it would have been when Bond and M confront/interrogate Mr.White and when Bond confronts Yusef but instead all we get is yet another interruption of a rapid cut, dizzying action scene and Bond pointing his ppk at the guy for 5 seconds and then fades to the next bloody scene respectively.

QoS was a good film but it should have been so much better. It didn't need to be bigger or as big as CR, it should have just been better or at the very least carried more depth. For me, what annoys me about QoS is, that it wasn't a case of the people involved not being capable to do better but instead they chose to make the film the way they did purely for artistic reasons and the end result culminated in something underwhelming as a whole.

[Odd Jobbies]

Some folk here have mentioned Pierre Morel (Taken) as a contender.

IMO he's wrong for Bond (right for Statham and Transporter 4).

Here's the trailer for his next movie, starring Travolta. For me it only reaffirms his unsuitability for Bond, but everyones entitled to their opinion:

http://www.slashfilm...ovie-trailer-2/

[Trident]

Somehow I don't think 23's director will be a typical 'action-genre' professional.

[Odd Jobbies]

There was talk earlier in the thread about Jonathan Mostow directing the next Bond.

Well, i just saw SURROGATES and if Mostow gets the Bond gig after mangling such a good premise into the incomprehensible, un-engaging rubbish i just saw, then Eon have lost the plot (much like Surrogates).

The script is dull, cliche and expositional, yet despite the exposition, it seems to have been re-cut in such away as to purposefully confuse the viewer. Believe me, i like a plot that squeezes the grey cells, but this one mugs and robs you.

Sadly Mostow has to take responsibility for this. it has plenty of action and you get the sense that he believes he's making the next Bladerunner crossed with the Matrix & Terminator. If his misguided aspirations had focused on ANYTHING other than explosions and chases, then maybe Surrogates could've got halfway there. Sadly it only steals from the classics, re-branding them as MTV mini-bites for A.D.D. sufferers.

If only i'd sent my own surrogate to see the film instead, then i could've disconnected rather than sit through to the very predictable, navel gazing ending. Time after time it suggests a twist, or a turn in the plot or the tone, but every time pulls the rug to reveal yet more hollywood sentimentalism for the brain dead.

I'd say stay away from this movie, but i think it's a good lesson in how to make a very mediocre movie out of a great concept. God forbid that be the fate of Bond 23.

I see on IMDB, which has it's usual totally inaccurate review (see Rotten Tomatoes for the realistic 38% review), that Mostow is attached to Sub Mariner and the unnecessary Escape From New York remake (i wish they'd let Carpenter do Escape From Planet Earth instead). But after this misfire I predict a low budget production on Mostow's horizon.

TBH that's the best thing that could happen to him - he might finally live up to the promise he showed with 1997's Breakdown.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 30 September 2009 - 06:29 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 05 October 2009 - 10:28 AM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

[Zorin Industries]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

It is worth remembering that when media outlets such as fan-led sites like IGN announce a short list that that has very little do with the reality of who was looked at and considered for BOND 22.

The same goes with BOND 23.

Whilst your list is solid, it is similiar to the same old names doing the rounds. Whoever does direct BOND 23 it will be no-one named on any list right now.

PS. The HIGHLANDER series did die off - around the second film if I remember right.. but someone somewhere keeps getting the money to try and make more money from it. That is, of course, only my opinion.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

It is worth remembering that when media outlets such as fan-led sites like IGN announce a short list that that has very little do with the reality of who was looked at and considered for BOND 22.

The same goes with BOND 23.

Whilst your list is solid, it is similiar to the same old names doing the rounds. Whoever does direct BOND 23 it will be no-one named on any list right now.

thank you I though u were gonna make Commenton Justin Lin... who is a REAL director btw (he's done the fast and furious films i never saw them and am only interested in how he does the highlander remake)

the problem with movie news Is it's gabeled Sometimes it's Dead on (rumours Christan Bale would be batman started on the dead Batman vs superman project finnaly came true fro nolan's batman films) and far in advanced other time it's not even close (the various A-team rumours Personnaly I don't think Jim Carry Bruce Willis and others were ever considered as with just the 4 of them alone the budget would be astronomical the castin director is smart getting good actors who aren't alist stars time will tell if the cast will work)


Sometimes Fans voices can be heard and get what they want (Jackie Earle Hailey as Freddy krugear was demanded by fans when it was announced Englund would not be returning and suprise suprise look who got the role of Freddy Kruegar) sometimes fans requests are ignored (there was a petition going around to have risico be the title of bond 22 clearly It went on deaf ears)


Are the times sites like Moviehole and IGN and forums like IMDB and CBN right mere coincedences maybe Maybe not. not all internet rumour is hogwalsh and not all of it is gospel it's a murkey murkey pond BUT with a little work one can find truth.


We live in an Interesting time... well i do I have Bond and Batman films i can be proud of ( wasn't the case 10 years ago) I have films that i thought would never happen happening (A-team the movie has been in devlopment since 1987 no joke it's 22 years later and we are finnaly getting it) Right or wrong Bond rumours are just fun to argue to me it's part of the fun "Is Ign's list acurate and if so who on the list do you think EON will choose" Is something that i just enjoy. Remeber on IGN's list last time was Marc Forester who gt the gig.

Sometimes i wonder if Film companies "leak" certain ideas to test and see if the fans will like it or hate it. Seems plausible enough.

Welp rambling time is over. To sum Up I love bond and bond rumours is that SO wrong?

[tdalton]

thank you I though u were gonna make Commenton Justin Lin... who is a REAL director btw (he's done the fast and furious films i never saw them and am only interested in how he does the highlander remake)

After seeing Just Lin's work on the "Fast and Furious" franchise, I don't want him to direct a Bond film. Both The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift and Fast and Furious were nothing short of awful, easily the two worst films in the series (which is really saying something considering how awful 2 Fast 2 Furious was. Also, the last film was so full of unnecessary CGI (certainly some of the computer-generated "stunts" could have been done for real) that I would have to expect a Justin Lin directed Bond 23 to look very much like Die Another Day in terms of its use of CGI and its overall quality as a film.

[Zorin Industries]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

It is worth remembering that when media outlets such as fan-led sites like IGN announce a short list that that has very little do with the reality of who was looked at and considered for BOND 22.

The same goes with BOND 23.

Whilst your list is solid, it is similiar to the same old names doing the rounds. Whoever does direct BOND 23 it will be no-one named on any list right now.

thank you I though u were gonna make Commenton Justin Lin... who is a REAL director btw (he's done the fast and furious films i never saw them and am only interested in how he does the highlander remake)

the problem with movie news Is it's gabeled Sometimes it's Dead on (rumours Christan Bale would be batman started on the dead Batman vs superman project finnaly came true fro nolan's batman films) and far in advanced other time it's not even close (the various A-team rumours Personnaly I don't think Jim Carry Bruce Willis and others were ever considered as with just the 4 of them alone the budget would be astronomical the castin director is smart getting good actors who aren't alist stars time will tell if the cast will work)


Sometimes Fans voices can be heard and get what they want (Jackie Earle Hailey as Freddy krugear was demanded by fans when it was announced Englund would not be returning and suprise suprise look who got the role of Freddy Kruegar) sometimes fans requests are ignored (there was a petition going around to have risico be the title of bond 22 clearly It went on deaf ears)


Are the times sites like Moviehole and IGN and forums like IMDB and CBN right mere coincedences maybe Maybe not. not all internet rumour is hogwalsh and not all of it is gospel it's a murkey murkey pond BUT with a little work one can find truth.


We live in an Interesting time... well i do I have Bond and Batman films i can be proud of ( wasn't the case 10 years ago) I have films that i thought would never happen happening (A-team the movie has been in devlopment since 1987 no joke it's 22 years later and we are finnaly getting it) Right or wrong Bond rumours are just fun to argue to me it's part of the fun "Is Ign's list acurate and if so who on the list do you think EON will choose" Is something that i just enjoy. Remeber on IGN's list last time was Marc Forester who gt the gig.

Sometimes i wonder if Film companies "leak" certain ideas to test and see if the fans will like it or hate it. Seems plausible enough.

Welp rambling time is over. To sum Up I love bond and bond rumours is that SO wrong?

No. Not wrong (.....!)

Fan-led petitions for things like the title for BOND 22 were pointless. The title for BOND 22 was loosely earmarked before that (note I say "loosely).

And if Justin Lin does indeed have THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS on his CV then he is not a director of note by any stretch and - HIGHLANDER or not - would not be on any BOND 23 shortlist. Eon tend to cast their nets a little wider and classier than that...call it a hunch...

IMDB is a great quick port of call. It is not the definitive last word on anything. And its accuracies are not very accurate. I have a page on there and am quite confused as to where some of my credits are and how they do not update them. But then as I never asked for a IMDB treatment, I am not that bothered. But be careful what you read - and more importantly - believe from sites such as that.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

It is worth remembering that when media outlets such as fan-led sites like IGN announce a short list that that has very little do with the reality of who was looked at and considered for BOND 22.

The same goes with BOND 23.

Whilst your list is solid, it is similiar to the same old names doing the rounds. Whoever does direct BOND 23 it will be no-one named on any list right now.

thank you I though u were gonna make Commenton Justin Lin... who is a REAL director btw (he's done the fast and furious films i never saw them and am only interested in how he does the highlander remake)

the problem with movie news Is it's gabeled Sometimes it's Dead on (rumours Christan Bale would be batman started on the dead Batman vs superman project finnaly came true fro nolan's batman films) and far in advanced other time it's not even close (the various A-team rumours Personnaly I don't think Jim Carry Bruce Willis and others were ever considered as with just the 4 of them alone the budget would be astronomical the castin director is smart getting good actors who aren't alist stars time will tell if the cast will work)


Sometimes Fans voices can be heard and get what they want (Jackie Earle Hailey as Freddy krugear was demanded by fans when it was announced Englund would not be returning and suprise suprise look who got the role of Freddy Kruegar) sometimes fans requests are ignored (there was a petition going around to have risico be the title of bond 22 clearly It went on deaf ears)


Are the times sites like Moviehole and IGN and forums like IMDB and CBN right mere coincedences maybe Maybe not. not all internet rumour is hogwalsh and not all of it is gospel it's a murkey murkey pond BUT with a little work one can find truth.


We live in an Interesting time... well i do I have Bond and Batman films i can be proud of ( wasn't the case 10 years ago) I have films that i thought would never happen happening (A-team the movie has been in devlopment since 1987 no joke it's 22 years later and we are finnaly getting it) Right or wrong Bond rumours are just fun to argue to me it's part of the fun "Is Ign's list acurate and if so who on the list do you think EON will choose" Is something that i just enjoy. Remeber on IGN's list last time was Marc Forester who gt the gig.

Sometimes i wonder if Film companies "leak" certain ideas to test and see if the fans will like it or hate it. Seems plausible enough.

Welp rambling time is over. To sum Up I love bond and bond rumours is that SO wrong?

No. Not wrong (.....!)

Fan-led petitions for things like the title for BOND 22 were pointless. The title for BOND 22 was loosely earmarked before that (note I say "loosely).

And if Justin Lin does indeed have THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS on his CV then he is not a director of note by any stretch and - HIGHLANDER or not - would not be on any BOND 23 shortlist. Eon tend to cast their nets a little wider and classier than that...call it a hunch...

IMDB is a great quick port of call. It is not the definitive last word on anything. And its accuracies are not very accurate. I have a page on there and am quite confused as to where some of my credits are and how they do not update them. But then as I never asked for a IMDB treatment, I am not that bothered. But be careful what you read - and more importantly - believe from sites such as that.

I've never seen the fast and the furious films but to me my 4 favourite franchises (James bond, Batman Macgyver and highlander) all seem to have a common thread like they are brothers or something. Justin lin is not my choice for a highlander redue (martin Campbell or Chris nolan would be for obvious reasons) but if he does a good enouugh job I'll recomend him for bond simply because i veiw Highlander as a sort of Scifi 007 (i can almost imagine the creators saying "well we can't do a 007 film cause eon doesn't know and want us maybe we'll create our own He'll be immortal instead of a spy and Scottish like the first James bond and ...." I'd go on with the similarities but since they are painfully obvious i'll leave it alone) So if the remake is really well recieved and very well done Lin will be my choice for bond 24 (i don't see highlander being done before Bond 23) simply because Highlander is a similar franchise to bond at least to me. I;'m curious if Nolan should direct bond fans are thinking the same thing.

Imdb is interesting as sometimes fans can agree and pleasent conversation can be had and then their are other times ..... I'm curious if a Fleming title is already "loosley attached' to bond 23 and if your property of a lady comments are true or to throw us off the trail (after all if we all listen to you and asume bond 23 isn't The property of a lady we'll all be suprised to see if it is)


I am trying to think More universally and farther from the Adrian Paul (who i still feel would be perfect but myabe i'll leave it alone) of the world. i'm not ready to jump on a fanbased director band wagon just yet but i do enjoy hearing the ideas.

[Zorin Industries]

Hey folks. just an impromptu line about Joe Wright.

I've seen a few interviews with him recently ('Jonathan Ross film 2007' & a David Lean documentary on BBC4). I feel quite bad about saying mean things. Seems i jumped to the assumption that he was over-privileged and only interested in making posh films for the upper classes.

I was speaking completely out of my a.r.s.e. He appears to be a very nice bloke - thoughtful and down to earth. Also his ideas about using LA's homeless to film the Soloist, despite the actor's union saying he shouldn't, are very commendable.

I'm still not sure that, given his style, i'd be keen on him directing Bond, but i'll be re-watching his movies without the obvious chip on my shoulder.

What's worse is that after realizing i was talking out of my a.r.s.e. and sat down to write this, i looked him up on imdb to check the spelling of his name and realized that i went to art school with him almost 2 decades ago. I now recall him and he was indeed a very nice guy, so i'm a double t.w.a.t.

Promise to not bad mouth filmmakers i don't know (and even the ones i do) any more.

(Apart from Jonathan Mostow - Surrogates really was unbelievably bad)

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

It is worth remembering that when media outlets such as fan-led sites like IGN announce a short list that that has very little do with the reality of who was looked at and considered for BOND 22.

The same goes with BOND 23.

Whilst your list is solid, it is similiar to the same old names doing the rounds. Whoever does direct BOND 23 it will be no-one named on any list right now.

thank you I though u were gonna make Commenton Justin Lin... who is a REAL director btw (he's done the fast and furious films i never saw them and am only interested in how he does the highlander remake)

the problem with movie news Is it's gabeled Sometimes it's Dead on (rumours Christan Bale would be batman started on the dead Batman vs superman project finnaly came true fro nolan's batman films) and far in advanced other time it's not even close (the various A-team rumours Personnaly I don't think Jim Carry Bruce Willis and others were ever considered as with just the 4 of them alone the budget would be astronomical the castin director is smart getting good actors who aren't alist stars time will tell if the cast will work)


Sometimes Fans voices can be heard and get what they want (Jackie Earle Hailey as Freddy krugear was demanded by fans when it was announced Englund would not be returning and suprise suprise look who got the role of Freddy Kruegar) sometimes fans requests are ignored (there was a petition going around to have risico be the title of bond 22 clearly It went on deaf ears)


Are the times sites like Moviehole and IGN and forums like IMDB and CBN right mere coincedences maybe Maybe not. not all internet rumour is hogwalsh and not all of it is gospel it's a murkey murkey pond BUT with a little work one can find truth.


We live in an Interesting time... well i do I have Bond and Batman films i can be proud of ( wasn't the case 10 years ago) I have films that i thought would never happen happening (A-team the movie has been in devlopment since 1987 no joke it's 22 years later and we are finnaly getting it) Right or wrong Bond rumours are just fun to argue to me it's part of the fun "Is Ign's list acurate and if so who on the list do you think EON will choose" Is something that i just enjoy. Remeber on IGN's list last time was Marc Forester who gt the gig.

Sometimes i wonder if Film companies "leak" certain ideas to test and see if the fans will like it or hate it. Seems plausible enough.

Welp rambling time is over. To sum Up I love bond and bond rumours is that SO wrong?

No. Not wrong (.....!)

Fan-led petitions for things like the title for BOND 22 were pointless. The title for BOND 22 was loosely earmarked before that (note I say "loosely).

And if Justin Lin does indeed have THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS on his CV then he is not a director of note by any stretch and - HIGHLANDER or not - would not be on any BOND 23 shortlist. Eon tend to cast their nets a little wider and classier than that...call it a hunch...

IMDB is a great quick port of call. It is not the definitive last word on anything. And its accuracies are not very accurate. I have a page on there and am quite confused as to where some of my credits are and how they do not update them. But then as I never asked for a IMDB treatment, I am not that bothered. But be careful what you read - and more importantly - believe from sites such as that.

I've never seen the fast and the furious films but to me my 4 favourite franchises (James bond, Batman Macgyver and highlander) all seem to have a common thread like they are brothers or something. Justin lin is not my choice for a highlander redue (martin Campbell or Chris nolan would be for obvious reasons) but if he does a good enouugh job I'll recomend him for bond simply because i veiw Highlander as a sort of Scifi 007 (i can almost imagine the creators saying "well we can't do a 007 film cause eon doesn't know and want us maybe we'll create our own He'll be immortal instead of a spy and Scottish like the first James bond and ...." I'd go on with the similarities but since they are painfully obvious i'll leave it alone) So if the remake is really well recieved and very well done Lin will be my choice for bond 24 (i don't see highlander being done before Bond 23) simply because Highlander is a similar franchise to bond at least to me. I;'m curious if Nolan should direct bond fans are thinking the same thing.

Imdb is interesting as sometimes fans can agree and pleasent conversation can be had and then their are other times ..... I'm curious if a Fleming title is already "loosley attached' to bond 23 and if your property of a lady comments are true or to throw us off the trail (after all if we all listen to you and asume bond 23 isn't The property of a lady we'll all be suprised to see if it is)

I was talking about BOND 22 - not 23. I have no "trail" to either put people on or divert them from.

[tdalton]

I've never seen the fast and the furious films be suprised to see if it is)

They're awful. I actually quite like the first film (The Fast and the Furious), but Lin's two contributions to the franchise are just beyond awful. His first take on the franchise, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift plays out very much like a big-budget TV movie, and the one true "sequel" to the first film, Fast and Furious, was just so poorly done that there's not really any words to describe how awful it was. There was so much CGI (almost all of it completely unnecessary) that one could have been forgiven for thinking that most of the film was filmed against a green screen (such as the opening tanker scene, which was done so much better 20 years ago when EON did it for real in Licence to Kill). Even if a remake of Highlander turned out great (it most assuredly won't if it features the kind of direction found in the last two Fast and Furious films), the direction in the Fast and Furious franchise will lead me to be against the idea of a Justin Lin directed Bond film.

[Trident]

I suspect Zorin Industries is right, whoever will get the gig in the end will most likely be a surprise for most of us. EON is trying to come up with unexpected approaches to all kinds of Bond aspects. There is no reason to suggest they've suddenly stopped their quite successful direction. Choosing a previously not suspected director would be one of EON's goals.

[Odd Jobbies]

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

Many thanks - no problem swallowing my pride here though, i was 100% wrong.

That's certainly a strong contender list, but i also don't really see any of these guys either being chosen, or choosing to do it. I don't think the director will be a surprise in terms of their CV (i'd guess it'll be more traditional after going out on a limb with Forster, not because he was bad, just to avoid leaving the conventions for too long). The history is that the ultimate choice is often a surprise in terms of not being on a list, so who knows?

Highlander... hmm.... I'm a huge fan. I saw the original at the cinema as a teen and it certainly had a tremendous effect - not least because it introduced me to Queen. But it really was a fusion of talents in the right place at the right time:

1) Mulcahay's second film as Director - first with a 'decent' budget - is out to prove himself. His virtuosity with camera movement honed in pop-promos such as Duran Duran's 'Wild Boys' gave him a dynamic, exciting take on story-telling, particularly how he takes us from one location/era to another - very exciting for its time. His intuitive style meshed perfectly with Queen's cinematic sound.

2) Queen - as i said, they really stepped up to the plate for this. They'd learned lots from their experimental Flash Gordon score. This time they wrote as if this was opera - the lyrics really giving voice to the narrative. Without Queen this movie really is a far lesser beast (see the sequels etc for the proof).

3) Gregory Widen... Fresh out of UCLA i believe, this was the first script he sold. There'd been nothing as ambitious IMO before or after when you consider that the original script, in which the immortals where fallen angels and would thus no doubt have contained far more nuance, meaning, relevancy and would have been very controversial. These deleted elements later became The Prophecy - not in Highlander's league, but a fair B-movie thanks to the ever-amazing Christopher Walken. Widen was not a part of any subsequent Highlander efforts and i think that too shows when you look at the mess that is Highlander 2...
-- a note on Highlander 2. It's unfairly judged as it had an incredibly unfortunate production; to save cash they shot at studios in Argentina. Halfway through the shoot a financial blip with the Dollar meant that their budget devalued enormously over night. In a panic the studio sent their heavies to Argentina, where they basically tore up the script and told Mulcahay what he was allowed to shoot, to finish quick and cut their losses. Mulcahay never attended the edit, or the premiere and what we have is a film half shot and cut by accountants. Years later Mulcahay put together the notorious 'Renegade cut' which is a vast improvement, but still a mess. Big shame, since it's the only sequel that looks like a movie; the rest looking more like extended TV episodes and that last one, 'The Source', is probably one of the worst films ever made.

4) The cast....
Lambert is not a great actor, can't do a scottish accent and shouldn't work at all as Connor Macleod.... However, he's somehow absolutely perfect! All these 'wrong' things seem to add up to a truly strange, enigmatic performance that really resembles how an immortal - a freak of nature - might look, sound and act. Part of his enigma is the fact that he couldn't speak any English when they shot the film. He was fed the lines and delivered them phonetically - the result is weird, but perfect.

Connery - obviously amazing, despite only being available for approximately 10 days. This along with The Name of The Rose was where his career came out of the doldrums it had wallowed in throughout the 70's and early 80's. You could say that there's 'Connery BH', and 'Connery AH' (as in BC and AD)

Clancey Brown. For me, his is the best performance and the easiest to underestimate - indeed it may be the best arch-villain performance of all time!


I was delighted to here about the remake some time ago, until i saw this script review:

http://www.cincity20...p...34&Itemid=2

It may well have changed in subsequent drafts - lets hope so. Still, i stayed positive, hoping for a talented director to jump at the chance to re-imagine a classic...

But, as has been announced by studio, the 'team' behind Fast and Furious MTV garbage, Justin Lin and his Producing partner, have been hired. Well for me that's where my enthusiasm ends. The choice smacks of the studio wanting a cheap (CGI heavy - location light) franchise that attracts a teenage audience eager to see decapitations, but not keen upon story and characterization. I believe the remake will make the original look like The Godfather as opposed to, well, The Fast & The Furious...

We can probably look forward to paul Walker as transatlantic-Macleod, Vin Diesel as Vin Diesel (i mean The Kurgan) and maybe Vin Rames as Ramirez (cast 'cos his name looks kinda similar to those skipping school and will look cool on the poster).

Oh, and the soundtrack... I'd reccommend they used tracks from the 2 Queen albums that came after A kind of Magic. It seems to me that Queen had a lot of Highlander inspired material left over after that album:
--Imagine the remake kicking off with 'I Want It All'? It'd be pretty good, no? There's Innuendo - epic stuff with a guitar solo made for a finale sword fight. Then there's Headlong for the Kurgan joy ride, and Ride the Wild Wind as a 'quickening' theme. And 'The Hitman' is without doubt a Kurgan theme etc, etc.
-- Alternatively i'm sure Muse would jump at the chance to emmulate their heros and score the remake.

However, I doubt Lin or the studio will fathom, or care just how integral having a single band score the film, like a rock-opera, was to the original's success. I'm sure we'll end up with a soundtrack by the same crappy bands he puts on his Fast & Furious movies so the teens can buy it, play it, chuck it out and buy the next one.

Count me out of this remake.

[Edited as i read it back a little later and really had to correct some typos, spelling, grammer etc :]

BTW, Panza is still puppeteering this remake, and since he was behind the previous awful sequels etc. that's just another nail in this film's coffin_____ though i really wish it'd turn out great!

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 05 October 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Wow very few can come onto a board and admit they were wrong for that i applaud your bravery.
Shame about Surrogates the trailer looked awesome I'm trusting your judgement (as i don't have that much extra money) so i'm probably gonna pass on Surrogates.


I'm curious to see if Mostow Proyas and .... God why can't i remeber the 4th name And whoever else was on that short list IGN got a hold of summer 2007 (tony Scott?) i wonder if thos 3 are still on eon's short list or if say it's change to now be

Joe Wright
Kathryn Bigelow
Tony Gilroy
and
Tony Scott

or if this time we will get a short list or not. ....

btw since it's no secret I'm a highlander fan I'm curious to see how the Remake Goes (yeah their remaking the orignal 1986 cult classic) As i always Felt Highalnder is sort of Scifi's answer to james bond if it's good i'll nominate director Justin Lin for bond if it sucks well the franchise will finnaly die off and I'll just enjoy the old show i grew up with as a kid.

Many thanks - no problem swallowing my pride here though, i was 100% wrong.

That's certainly a strong contender list, but i also don't really see any of these guys either being chosen, or choosing to do it. I don't think the director will be a surprise in terms of their CV (i'd guess it'll be more traditional after going out on a limb with Forster, not because he was bad, just to avoid leaving the conventions for too long). The history is that the ultimate choice is often a surprise in terms of not being on a list, so who knows?

Highlander... hmm.... I'm a huge fan. I saw the original at the cinema as a teen and it certainly had a tremendous effect - not least because it introduced me to Queen. But it really was a fusion of talents in the right place at the right time:

1) Mulcahay's second film as Director - first with a 'decent' budget - is out to prove himself. His virtuosity with camera movement honed in pop-promos such as Duran Duran's 'Wild Boys' gave him a dynamic, exciting take on story-telling, particularly hoe to take us from one location/time to another - very exciting for its time. His intuitive style meshed perfectly with Queen's cinematic sound.

2) Queen - as i said, they really stepped up to the plate for this. They'd learned lots from their experimental Flash Gordon score. This time they wrote as if this was opera - the lyrics really giving voice to the narrative. Without Queen this movie really is a far lesser beast (see the sequels etc for the proof).

Gregory Widen... Fresh out of UCLA i believe, this was the first script he sold. There'd been nothing as ambitious IMO before or after when you consider that the original script, in which the immortals where fallen angels and would thus no doubt have contained far more nuance, meaning, relevancy and would have been very controversial. These deleted elements later became The Prophecy - not in Highlander's league, but a fair B-movie thanks to the ever-amazing Christopher Walken. Widen was not a part of any subsequent Highlander efforts and i think that too shows when you look at the mess that is Highlander 2...
-- a note on Highlander 2. It's unfairly judged as it had an incredibly unfortunate production; to save cash they shot at studios in Argentina. Halfway through a financial blip with the Dollar meant that their budget devalued enormously over night. In a panic the studio sent their heavy to Argentina, where they basically tore up the script and told Mulcahay what he was allowed to short to finish quick and cut their losses. Mulcahay never attended the edit, or the Premiere and what we have is a film half and cut by accountants. Years later Mulcahay put together the notorious 'Renegade cut' which is a vast improvement, but still a mess. Big shame, since it's the only sequel that looks like a movie (the rest looking more like extended TV episodes and the last one, 'The Source', being probably one of the worst films ever made.

3) The cast....
Lambert is not a great actor, can't do a scottish accent and shouldn't work at all as Connor Macleod.... However, he's somehow absolutely perfect! All these 'wrong' things seem to add up to a truly strange, enigmatic performance that really resembles how an immortal - a freak of nature - might look, sound and act. Part of his enigma is the fact that he couldn't speak any English when they shot the film. He was fed the lines and delivered them phonetically. the result is weird, but perfect.

Connery - obviously amazing, despite only being available for approximately 10 days. This along with The Name of The Rose was where his career came out of the doldrums it had wallowed in throughout the 70's and early 80's. You could say that there's 'Connery BH', and 'Connery AH' ;-)

Clancey Brown. For me his is the best performance and the easiest to underestimate - indeed it may be the best arch-villain performance of all time!

I was delighted to here about the remake some time ago, until i saw this script review:

http://www.cincity20...p...34&Itemid=2

It may well have changed in subsequent drafts - lets hope so. Still, i stayed positive, hoping for a talented director to jump at the chance to re-imagine a classic... But, as has been announced by studio, the 'team' behind Fast and Furious MTV garbage Justin Lin and his Producing partner have been hired. Well for me that's where my enthusiasm ends. The choice smacks of the studio wanting a cheap (CGI heavy - location light) franchise that attracts a teenage audience eager to see decapitations, but not keen upon story and characterization. I believe the remake will make the original look like The Godfather as opposed to, well, The Fast & The Furious...

we can look forward to paul Walker as transatlantic Macleod, Vin Diesel as Vin Diesel (i mean The Kurgan) and maybe Vin Rames as Ramirez.

Oh, and the soundtrack... I'd reccommend they used tracks from the 2 Queen albums that came after A kind of Magic. It seems to me that Queen had a lot of Highlander inspired material left over after that album: Imagine the remake kicking off with 'I Want It All'? It'd be pretty good, no? There's Innuendo - epic stuff with a guitar solo made for a finale sword fight. Then there's Headlong for the Kurgan joy ride and Ride the Wild Wind as a 'quickening' theme. And 'The Hitman' is without doubt a Kurgan theme etc, etc. Alternatively i'm sure Muse would jump at the chance to emmulate their heros and score the remake.
However, I doubt Lin or the studio will fathom, or care just how integral having a single Band score the film like a rock-opera was to the original's success. I'm sure we'll end up with a soundtrack by the same crappy bands he puts on his Fast & Furious movies so the teens can buy it, play it and chuck it out.

Count me out of this remake.

the real tragedy is this is a brilliant idea and could make for a strong franchise. Tdalton has now crushed any hope i had in highlander ever being a franchise.

The show was good at least myabe they could make a new show....


I'll wait the trailer But i don;'t understand how such an awesome concept can get rung though the gutter.


As for Bond we'll see soon enough.

[MR. BOND 93]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

You do know that There Will Be Blood was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, and not the Coen Bros., right?

[The Shark]

But i don't see anything as intelligent and demanding as FRWL ever getting on the multiplex in the current Kiss Kiss Bang Bang blockbuster climate.

Personally I do, No Country Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood certainly did well critically and financially.

What about the Coen Brothers?

You do know that There Will Be Blood was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, and not the Coen Bros., right?

Er yeah. I mentioned those two because they were the two "dark" Oscar heavyweights of '07.

I also think Burn After Reading is a cracking comedy/paranoiac-thriller, very underrated and proof that they're perfecting their art with each film. Not to say that they've managed to top Fargo, The Big Lebowski or Barton Fink since.

[Odd Jobbies]

OK, to get serious again about this topic, there's the obvious dream choices that probably won't happen, such as Chris Nolan. Then there's my dream choices that won't happen, such as Jonathan Glazer.

But sticking to the names that really could end up behind the camera, i'm plumping for Kevin Macdonald - i haven't seen his 'State of Play' yet (it's certainly got a high bench mark to reach with the original TV series), but his 'Last King of Scotland' showed very capable direction of tension and emotion, along with handling Forrest's performance superbly - it could easily have unbalanced the film, but Macdonald 'manages' it very well. He's now working on what sounds like a roman blood'n guts action epic set around Hadrian's Wall. It'll probably show us how well he handles action, so if he gets that right i'd make him the top contender. He's got 2 films in development, but nothing so solid it puts him out of the frame.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0531817/


Next in line is Michael Winterbottom. He has one of the most diversely impressive CVs in the business. He's incredibly experimental, which allows him some misses, such as '9 Songs', but knows how to craft a story with a gusto and innovativeness like few others ('24 Hour Party People'). He even makes great docos ('The Shock Doctrine'). He's adept at the gritty realities of violence ('The Road to Guantanamo', 'Welcome to Sarajevo') which suits Eon's new direction very well. IMO i think they'd be lucky to get him, as he seems to have a lot in development (one that seems to have a finished script and another that's already been cast). It's another gamble along the lines of Forster, but could pay greater dividends.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0935863/

[Glockenspiel]

Martin Campbell all the way!!! What happened to the old days when they found a great director and kept him around for a long time! Although, he's got alot of other projects on the table, I can still dream. lol. Goldeneye and Casino Royale are my favorites!!!

I totally agree with you, Campbell is the most qualified and the less risky director to choose at that particular point.

[Judo chop]

Then there's my dream choices that won't happen, such as Jonathan Glazer.

Why, may I ask?

But sticking to the names that really could end up behind the camera, i'm plumping for Kevin Macdonald

This selection has my second all the way. I suppose it's my most realistic 'dream choice'.

Next in line is Michael Winterbottom.

He sounds interesting enough. I see him as the kind of guy EON might have grabbed during the Brosnan era, but I wonder if his resume is too 'insignificant' for this era.

[Judo chop]

Martin Campbell all the way!!! What happened to the old days when they found a great director and kept him around for a long time!

You know… I was going to chime in here and make some fun by responding – “They’re still there. In 1962, 1963 and 1965”.

But IF Campbell came back for B23, it might not be that far of a stretch to make some pretty significant comparisons between his and Young’s Bond careers.

First we have Young’s DN to Campbell’s GE: Both are ‘tight’ running films, both of a Bond-defining nature, and both are a bit rough around the edges but showing signs of good potential.

Then we have Young’s FRWL to Campbell’s CR: The two masterpieces of the series, and probably the two masterpieces of the directors' respective careers.

And finally, hypothetically, Young’s TB to Campbell’s… TB2?

It’s been suggested, reading between Craig’s lines, that B23 is likely going to have a THUNDERBALL vibe about it. Young’s third film is a relaxed one, not only in the narrative pacing but in the direction as well. It seemed like everybody in the crew just took it a little easier on the set. Bond was never cooler, and Young’s direction got just a little lazier. Everything but the Disco Volante slowed down. Would it be so hard to imagine the same thing occurring under Campbell after the high-energy knockout that he created in CR? I could imagine Campbell being asked to return, and turning it down, knowing he simply doesn’t have the energy to reproduce a work on the same level as his last smash. But then as the money that EON dangles becomes too much to pass over, he eventually signs up and has a little vacation himself in the vein of TB.

What’cha think?

[Odd Jobbies]

Then there's my dream choices that won't happen, such as Jonathan Glazer.

Why, may I ask?

Two words: Sexy Beast.

It's one of my all time favorites. Granted it may well be a meeting of fine talents (Kingsley & the script are amazing) and Glazer's not been able to get a budget since the well received 'Birth' (strange world!), so that makes him my dream choice alone - i have a lot of faith in the guy.

But sticking to the names that really could end up behind the camera, i'm plumping for Kevin Macdonald

This selection has my second all the way. I suppose it's my most realistic 'dream choice'.

Out of interest, what's you're most unrealistic choice?

Next in line is Michael Winterbottom.

He sounds interesting enough. I see him as the kind of guy EON might have grabbed during the Brosnan era, but I wonder if his resume is too 'insignificant' for this era.

I recall his name being bandied about in the Brosnan era as well as the current era. He tends to shoot with low budgets and independently, but don't be fooled, he's a very highly regarded filmmaker and he'd be quite a coup for Eon if they could come to an understanding. He is highly authorial, but he's also so experimental that perhaps he'd try working within the Eon system for a movie just for the hell of it.